m^ 



%:' ■ 



/^ 



w% 



^^* 



"^"^.^ 






^- ^^^w^ 






^ 



:"^^^'J?Si^* 






y^'mm 



,^^ ■ — --- -^ 

}:6 



LIBRARY OF CON'GRESS. 



^ 



•m ' m 

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.! 






<A 



% iiiiHcatiffit 



€\t €Ki\iilk €\nxtl. 



! I I M 



A VINDICATION 



C|e Calcic C|iiri:|, 



SEEIES OF LETTERS 



ADDRESSED TO 



THE RT. REV. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, 

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF VERMONT. 



BY 



FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, 

ARCHBISHOP OP BALTIMORE. 



" Tacere ultra non oportet, ne jam non A'erecundise, sed diffidentiae esse 
incipiat quod tacemus, et dum criminationes falsas contemnimus refutare, 
videamur crimen agnoscere." — S. Cypeian, L. ad Demetrianum. 




BALTIMORE: i3 

PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO. 

No. 178 MAKKET STREET. 

PITTSBURG— GEORGE QUIGLEY. 

Sold by the Principal Catholic Booksellers. 

1855. 






fV-^K 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, 

BY JOHN MUEPHY & COMPANY, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maryland. 



rjfatt 



THE following pages have been hastily written 
in reply to the late work of the Protestant 
Episcopal Bishop of Vermont, styled "The End 
of Controversy Controverted." The letters of 
which it is composed are addressed to me, and 
a special challenge to refute them is given, 
towards the end, in these words: "I commit 
the care of Dr. Milner's reputation to you, as his 
special admirer and friend." Yet I should not 
have noticed them, could I hope that the work 
of Dr. Milner would be perused generally by 
those who read the letters of Dr. Hopkins ; for 
I have entire confidence that every intelligent 
reader must feel that the Catholic controvertist 
is immeasurably superior in argument, and au- 
thorities, as well as style. At this time of public 



VI PREFACE. 

excitement, I desired to remain silent, if it could 
be without detriment to the interests of truth ; 
but from the air of triumph assumed by Dr. 
Hopkins, and the plaudits with which his work 
has been received by the Church Eeview, and 
other periodicals of his communion, I was per- 
suaded that silence would be misconstrued. " I 
could not then remain silent any longer," to 
borrow the words of St. Cyprian, which I have 
chosen for my motto, "lest my silence should be 
ascribed, not to a love of peace, but to a distrust 
of the merits of my cause ; and lest my disregard 
of false charges should be construed into an 
avowal of their truth."* In repelling his attack, 
I have been forced to make statements which 
may prove painful to the Religious denomina- 
tion, in which he holds so distinguished a 
position ; but as I give unquestionable authority 
for the facts, I feel justified by the necessity 
imposed on me, for bringing them forward. 
Il^one are more willing than Catholics to bury 
in oblivion whatever is odious in the legislation 

* L. ad Demetrianum. 



PREFACE. Vll 

or history of past ages, and to live in harmony 
and peace with their fellow-citizens in all the 
relations of life. We hold the maxim of St. 
Augustin : " Love the men, destroy the errors ; 
be bold without pride in the maintenance of 
truth ; strive for the truth without harshness ; 
pray for those whom you rebuke and con- 
found."* 

* Contra lit. Petiliani,!. i. sub fincm. 



E K K A T A. 



Page 43. For ^iog, read v£Oj. 

48, let line. For " Lexrins," read " Lerins." 

58. For " When this magnet," &c., read : " This is our compass, for 
want of which others are tossed," &c. 
126, 6th line from tottom. For " anticjuity," read "ambiguity." 



%Mt of Caittntts. 



LETTER I. 



ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY. 



First -work of Bishop Hopkins — Author's reply — No 
Rejoinder — Letter to Protestant Bishops — Bishop 
Hopkins' Challenge — Author's OflFer — Suspension of 
Hostilities — Unexpected Renewal — Dr. Ives — Failure 
of Dr. Jarvis — Conversions — Exaggerations — Conspi- 
racy Against our Common Liberties — Dr. Hopkins' 
Change of Tactics, . . . . . . .13 



LETTER IL 

RULE OF FAITH, 

Dr. Hopkins' Complaint of Misrepresentation Unfounded 
— Symbols — Thirty-nine Articles — Early Councils — 
Episcopalians Reject the Athanasian Creed — Leave an 
Article in Apostles' Creed discretionary — The Substance 
of the Creed Anterior to the Bible — Meaning of Thirty- 
nine Articles undetermined — Articles of Peace — Indivi- 
dual placed Above the Church — Explanation of Dr. 
Hopkins — Church Authority in Privy Council — General 
Convention cannot Claim Assent of the Mind — Council 
Erroneously Appealed to — Vain Boasting of Prayer- 
book, ..... 19 



CONTENTS. 



LETTER III. 

ON THE SCRIPTURE. 

Position of Dr. Milner — Rant of Dr. Hopkins — DiflFerence 
between Catholics and Episcopalians — Dr. Hopkins 
evades Objection — St. Augustin would not Believe the 
Gospel but for the Church — Common Law — Canon of 
Scripture — When Settled — Jerom's Authority — Ancient 
Tradition — Canon of Laodicea — Corruptions of Text — 
God a Rock — Vulgate Editions of Sixtus V. and Clement 
VIII., 32 

LETTER IV. 

INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

Tradition not a distinct Revelation — Testimony of Ire- 
' nseus — Tertullian — Clement of Alexandria — Origen — 
St. Cyprian — St. Athanasius— Artful Misquotation — St. 
Cyril of Jerusalem — St. Jerom — Mistranslation — St. 
Augustin — Prohibition of Scriptures — Act of Henry 
VIII., 47 

LETTER V. 

ON THE SACRAMENTS. 

Confirmation — Penance — Extreme Unction — Orders — Ma- 
trimony — St. Augustin — Canadians, . . . .61 

LETTER VL 

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

Jeremy Taylor — St. Augustin — Catechism of Church of 
England — Sixth Chapter of St. John— Explanation of 
St. Augustin— TertuUian's Style— The Martyr Ignatius 
— St. Justin— St. Ambrose— St. Cyril of Jerusalem— 



CONTENTS. XI 

Second Council of Nice — St. Cyprian — St. Jerom — Words 
of our Lord — Wilberforce — Dr. Hopkins on Testimony 
of Senses — St. Cyril of Jerusalem — Anglican Divines, . 70 

LETTER VII. 

ON THE SACRIFICE. 

Definition of Sacrifice — Prophecy of Malachi — St. Justin 
St. IrenjBus — St. Augustin — Anglicans — Mede, Overall, 
Hickes — Priest and Altar — Sacrifice always Acknow- 
ledged — Assertions by Wilberforce — Anglican Orders 
Invalid — Sacrifice Ignored — Alms for Mass, . . 88 

LETTER YIIL 

ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 

Custom Introduced by Force of Circumstances — Belief of 
Greeks — Like Change in Mode of Baptism — Sacrifice 
needs Consummation — Discipline Varies — English Par- 
liament and Calvin — Popes Leo and Gelasius — Commu- 
nion Under Both Kinds enjoined to Discover Mani- 
cheans — Facts which Prove Communion in One Kind, . 98 



LETTER IX. 

ON PENANCE. 

Agreement of Church of England and Catholic Church — 
Force of Greek Term — Circumstances to be Confessed — 
Confession not Private — Liberty to Choose Confes- 
sor — Attrition — Chillingworth — Form of Absolution — 
Change made by American Convention — Minister Ar- 
raigned for Exercising Power of Forgiveness — Tertul- 
lian's Testimony — Origen — Athanasius — Basil — Am- 
brose — Augustin — Irenaeus — St. Chrodegang — Council 
of Lateran — Council of Worms — Vicarious Satisfaction 
— Manner of Confession — Advantages, . . . 104 



XU CONTENTS. 

LETTER X. 

ON PURaATORY. 

Misstatement of Dr. Hopkins^Proof from the Macchabees 
— Testimony of Beveridge — Admission of Dr. Hopkins — 
Arguments of Dr. Milner — Views of St. Ambrose — St. 
Cyprian distorted — St. Augustin's Sentiments — Greeks 
and Latins — Anecdote — Prayer for tlie Dead under 
Edward VI., 122 

LETTER XL 

ON INDUXGENCES. 

Plenary Indulgence first granted by Urban II. — Questors 
of Indulgences — Argument from St. Paul — False State- 
ment of Dr. Hopkins — Usage in Spain — Act under 
Edward VI. for enforcing Abstinence — Treasure of the 
Church, . 133 

LETTER XIL 

ON DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN. 

Charge against Dr. Milner — Addresses to Infant Jesus — 
Mariolatry — Temple of the Trinity — Address of the 
Angel in Syriac — Title of Mother — Miracle of Cana — St. 
Cyril of Alexandria — Newcome — Silence of Scripture — 
Virtues of Mary — St. Bernard — St. Ambrose — Mother 
of God — St. Augustin — Assumption of the Blessed Vir- 
gin — St. Basil — St. Gregory the Great — St. Epiphanius 
— Injurious Supposition — Ancient Liturgies — St. Ire- 
naeus — Mary, Advocate of Eve, 139 



CONTENTS, Xlll 

LETTER XIII. 

ON THE INVOCATION OP THE SAINTS. 

Ambiguous Term used by Bellarmin — St. Justin — Dr. 
Milner's Argument not fairly Met or Stated — Interces- 
sion Admitted by Dr. Hopkins — Litany of St. Joseph — 
Canonization — Gibbon's Acknowledgment — Miracles — 
Voltaire's Tribute to Monasteries, . . . .162 

LETTER XIV. 

ON RELICS. 

Councils of Trent and Nice — Consecration of Altars — 
Brazen Serpent — Relics of St. Stephen — Miracles testi- 
fied by St. Augustin and St. Ambrose — Shrine of St. 
Thomas a Becket — Offerings — Scriptural Examples — 
Associations — Eloquent Passage of St. Ambrose — Pur- 
chase of the Body of St. Isidore — Custom of Kneeling to 
Sovereigns — Interested Motive — Kissing of Gospel — Tes- 
timony of St. Jerom, 174 

LETTER XV. 

ON IMAGES. 

Use of Sculpture or Painting as Memorials — Second 
Council of Nice — Testimony of St. Gregory — Fact of St. 
Epiphanius — Eusebius — Garbled Quotation from Cle- 
ment of Alexandria — St. Ambrose — Picture of St. Ste- 
phen — Optatus — Serenus breaks Image — Good Shepherd ^ 
— Honor referred to Originals — Bowing at the Name of 
Jesus — Miraculous Images — Omission of Second Com- 
mandment — Alleged Forgery, 186 



CONTENTS. 



LETTEE XVI. 

ON THE PRIMACY. 

Text of Promise — Distinction Abandoned — Ambitious Ten- 
dencies checked — Linus, Bishop after Peter — Origen — 
Cyprian — Eusebius — Ambrose — Author of Books on the 
Sacraments doubtful — St. Jerom — St. Augustin — Ap- 
pellate Power — Council of Constantinople did not place 
the Bishop on a level with the Pope — Misstatement of 
Proceedings at Chalcedon — Popess Joan — Acknowledg- 
ment of Succession by Beveridge — African Appeals — 
Misnomer — Letter of St. Peter to Pepin — Scandals — 
Causes of Slander — St. Augustin's Beply — Boniface 
VIIL— Blunder of Dr. Hopkins, 198 

LETTER XYII. 

ON TEMPORAL POWER. 

Parliament Gulled — Confederacy of Christian Nations — 
Application of People — Grounds of Sentence — Investi- 
tures not Sole Cause of Contest — Bull of Pius V. — Ex- 
communication of Napoleon — Mr. Brownson's View — 
Bishops not Responsible — Dr. Nevin's Avowal, . .217 

LETTER XVIIL 

ON ABUSES. 

Summary of Scandals — Authority of Fleury — St. Augus- 
tin — Butler's Analogy — Marriage of Clergy — Henry 
VIII. enforces Celibacy — Elizabeth averse to the Mar- 
riage of Clergymen — St. Augustin Explains the For- 
bearance of the Church — Simony — Military Character 
of Bishops — Dr. Nevin on Church Influence — University 
of Paris — Mistranslation and Misrepresentation — The 
Wicked are Known ; the Virtuous are Unperceived — 
English Schism not occasioned by Abuses, . . . 229 



CaNTENTS XV 



LETTER XIX. 

ON PERSECUTION. 

Avowal of Dr. Hopkins — First Instances of Burning Here- 
tics by Emperor of Constantinople — Appeal of St. Au- 
gustin — Decree of Lateran — St. Leo — Third Council of 
Lateran — Crusades against Sectaries — Force of Latin 
Term — Civil Authorities required to clear their Terri- 
tories of this Heretical Filth — Mixed Character of 
Councils — Nature of Inquisition — Star Chamber — Per- 
secuting Spirit of Archbishops of Canterbury, . . 243 

LETTER XX. 

ON HENRY VIII. 

Dr. Hopkins denies that his Passion for Anne Boleyn led to 
the Schism — Testimony of Sir James Mackintosh — Case 
of Josephine — Documents Signed at Orvieto — Despair 
of Success — Opposition of the Clergy — Policy of Henry 
— Fisher and More — Cruelty of Henry towards his 
Wives — Persecutions — Tyranny — Plea of Dr. Hopkins — 
Countess of Salisbury — Plunder of Monasteries, . . 271 

LETTER XXL 

ON CRANMER. 

Slander of Jesuits — Concubinage of Cranmer — Cruelty — 
Pliancy — Time-serving — Perjury — Vain Pleas — Signs 
Death-Warrant of Sudeley — Treason— Repeated Preva- 
rications, 289 

LETTER XXIL 

ON THE CHITRCH OF ENGLAND. 

Alleged Misrepresentation— Origin of British Churches — 
Curious Mistake — False Charge of Force being Employed 



XVI CONTENTS. 

— Canterbury — Ordination of Matthew Parker — Ordinal 
of Edward VI. — Invalidity of Orders — Cranmer's Views 
— Bishops Ecclesiastical Sheriffs — Jurisdiction from the 
Crown — Matthew Parker had no Ecclesiastical Mission 
— Illustration adduced by Dr. Hopkins — Republicanism 
—Parent Church, 302 

LETTER XXIIL 

ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

The Church an Obedient and Faithful Spouse — Her Per- 
manence Miraculous — Her Catholicity denied by Dr. 
Hopkins, affirmed by St. Augustin — Maxim of Vincent 
of Lerins — Her Unity — Eeligious Orders — Republican 
Features — Death-bed Conversions, .... 322 



YINDICATION OF THE CATHOLIC 
CHUECH. 



LETTER I. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

MORE than seventeen years have passed away 
since I had the honor of addressing you a 
series of letters, " On the Primacy of the Apos- 
tolic See, and the Authority of General Coun- 
cils," in reply to your work comparing "The 
Church of Rome at the present day, with The 
Church of Rome in its Primitive Purity." As 
you had addressed "the Roman hierarchy," in 
behalf of Christian unity, urging us to discard 
our distinctive tenets, I felt authorized to re- 
view your book, and vindicate the claims which 
we recognize in our head, and in the general 
councils of bishops. You did not think proper 
to publish any rejoinder. In 1841, I imitated 
your zeal for unity, by writing a short letter to 
the Protestant Episcopal Bishops, inviting them 



14 ONTHEORIGINOF 

to follow up to its legitimate consequences the 
movement towards the Catholic Church which 
had begun in England. At length, in 1843, you 
addressed me in a chivalrous spirit, challenging 
me to a public discussion of all the points at 
issue between our respective communions, and 
allowing me to bring with me to the encounter 
as many of my colleagues as I chose. I declined 
this trial of strength as undignified and unsatis- 
factory, but ofiered to open a correspondence 
with you on the various questions, through the 
columns of the Catholic Herald and l^ew York 
Churchman. This proposition was not agreeable 
to you, so that you broke ofi'the correspondence, 
intimating, however, that you would treat the 
matters of controversy in books, to be published 
at your convenience. On the refusal of the former 
Protestant diocesan of Philadelphia to allow 
you to deliver in the churches of that city " Lec- 
tures on the British Reformation," you gave 
them through the press as " intended to be de- 
livered." Of these I did not feel bound to take 
any notice, as they had no reference to me, or 
my work on the Primacy. When Dr. Ives, the 
Protestant Episcopal Bishop of ]N"orth Carolina, 
who has since passed to our communion, was 
engaged in recommending the practice of con- 
fession, you published " A History of the Confes- 
sional," with a view to counteract his dangerous 
tendencies and influence. This also did not 
concern me. In the mean time I published two 



THIS CONTROVERSY. 15 

editions of my work, whicli I divested of its epis- 
tolary form, and of all direct reference to you, en- 
larging it so as to serve as a general treatise on the 
Primacy. You and I thus appeared to have bid 
each other adieu, though, as you justly suppose, 
I had not forgotten you, and you evince by your 
late book that you have not forgotten me. 
(Manet alta mente repostum.) I was somewhat 
surprised, on my late return from Rome, after a 
short absence, to learn that you had addressed to 
me a series of letters, filling two large volumes, 
and purporting to be a review of Milner's End 
of Controversy. My recommendation of this 
work in my letter to the Protestant Bishops as 
calculated to place before them the main points 
at issue with their proofs, induced the late Dr. 
Samuel Farmar Jarvis, some years ago, to under- 
take to answer it ; but his failure is manifest 
from the fact, that you have chosen the same 
arduous task, as if nothing had been attempted. 
He, indeed, interpreting the Apocalypse, ven- 
tured to calculate the overthrow of the Papacy, 
in the year in which he was writing (1847), 
whilst you, more wisely, avow your conviction, 
that it will continue until the second advent of 
our Redeemer. You call my attention to the 
fact that my recommendation did not pass un- 
heeded ; which is certainly gratifying, especially 
as it has taken so many years to prepare your 
elaborate reply. You remind me, likewise, of 
my anticipations, that "numbers would break 



16 ON THE ORIGIN OF 

from your ranks," in case you and your col- 
leagues hesitated to join our communion, and 
you insinuate that I must feel mortified and dis- 
appointed, although you acknowledge that more 
than a dozen clergymen of the United States, 
with a Bishop at their head, have passed over to 
us, whilst in England more than a hundred, 
among whom are two archdeacons, of high 
learning and character, have abjured the Queen's 
supremacy. Besides, many respectable laymen, 
some of them in your immediate neighborhood, 
have followed these examples. To counter- 
balance these defections, you boast of sixty 
thousand Irish Catholics that have embraced 
the religion of the crown ; but I fear that you 
have been deceived by some interested parties, 
whose exaggerations were directed to obtain 
new supplies from their patrons, in order to 
furnish the converts with soup, and other aids 
for the diffusion of their tenets. 

The number of emigrants, or their descen- 
dants, who you suppose are lost to the Church 
in this country, is greatly overcalculated, for a 
case of formal apostacy is extremely rare, and 
many who for years neglect all practices of reli- 
gious duty, are often regained with their whole 
families. Indeed, if the defections were nume- 
rous, the alarm which is now excited in regard 
to our increase, would be altogether void of pre- 
text, and you would have no occasion to join in 
the hue and cry which is raised against us, or to 



THIS CONTROVERSY. 17 

point to our principles as perilous to the safety 
of the country. You might rather assume the 
more amiable character of pacificator, and im- 
plore the public to wait with patience, since we 
should soon disappear from the land under the 
less violent process of dissolution or amalgama- 
tion. But you are alarmed that men of high 
position and distinguished intelligence should 
pass over to us, even at the sacrifice of every 
worldly interest, and you feel that in the changes 
which take place, the advantages are greatly on 
our side ; whence you abandon calm discussion, 
and appeal to vulgar prejudice. At a moment 
when we are likely to fall victims to a vast con- 
spiracy against the common liberties of the 
country, which are assailed in us, you reappear 
on the field, and join in the general onslaught. 
The tone of your former work was courteous, 
almost to affectation ; the select topics of which 
you treated, were supported with a show of 
learning and argument ; but your controversial 
tactics have undergone an unhappy change. 
The same professions of kindliness are, indeed, 
repeated with increased solemnity ; the same 
attempt is made to sustain your positions by a 
display of authorities ; but, for the most part, 
you rely on the scandals and abuses of past ages, 
to discredit and disgrace the Church, and you 
meet the learned statements and reasoning of 
Dr. Milner by abusive epithets, and unwarranted 
imputations. On reading your letters, I deter- 
2* 



18 ON THE ORIGIN OF, ETC. 

mined not to give any special reply to them, but 
to refer to them in the preface and notes to a 
fourth stereotyped edition of my work on the 
Primacy, which was then in press, and which 
anticipated most of your charges. As, how- 
ever, my manuscript arrived too late at the office, 
the plates being already finished, I am induced 
to answer briefly the chief points which you 
have brought under discussion, but still beg to 
refer to my larger treatise. Although I can- 
not complain of any gross violation of personal 
courtesy, your raillery being pardonable in a 
struggling controvertist, your charges are so 
gross and groundless, that in refuting them I 
may appear wanting in respect ; yet I trust that 
I shall not forget what is due to your position, 
as well as my own, and to the interests of truth, 
which are best maintained when charity is not 
violated. " "When I am under the necessity of 
answering others verbally, or in writing, even 
should I have been provoked by insulting 
charges, I endeavor, as far as the Lord gives me 
grace, to restrain and repress my feelings of 
indignation, that I may edify the hearers or 
readers, so that I seek not to prove superior to 
my adversary in railing, but profitable to others 
by exposing error,"* St. Augustin is my guide 
and model. 

* Contra litteras Petiliani, 1. iii. n. 1. 



LETTER II. 

®it i\t ^uk at |ai% 

RiaHT Eeverend Sir: 

YOU accept tlie qualifications of .the Rule of 
Faith, as laid down by Dr. Milner, namely, 
tliat it must be certain, secure, and universal. 
For tlie Churcb. of England you claim that sbe 
is distinguished from fanatics, who take the 
Bible for their guide, interpreting it according 
to their fancy, whilst she holds the interpretation 
given of it by the ancient church, as embodied 
in the formularies, called symbols, and in the 
truly general councils. You do not, however, 
confine it to these, since you refer to the Book of 
Common Prayer generally, and to the Thirty- 
Nine Articles in particular, as exponents of 
the primitive doctrine. Yet as these articles 
were adopted only under Elizabeth, instead of 
the forty-two articles approved by Edward, I do 
not see how they can serve as sure guides to the 
primitive interpretation of Scripture. Besides, 
you blame us for doctrinal definitions made in 
the Council of Trent, which you brand as addi- 
tions to the ancient symbols, sanctioned by the 



20 ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

early councils: how, then, justify the English 
convocation or parliament in setting forth so 
many points of doctrine not specified in the 
9;ncient formularies ? But be this as you please, 
you are entitled to the full benefit of the Articles 
and Prayer Book. It is for you to show that 
they so qualify and determine the interpretation 
of Scripture, that your members are not exposed 
to the danger of mistaking their own imagina- 
tions for the true meaning of the text. Dr. 
Milner insists that you must come down to the 
level of the Protestant masses from the vantage- 
ground which you proudly occupy: since, al- 
though you profess to understand the Scripture 
in conformity with the Articles, you have no 
certain means of determining the meaning of 
these, wherever they are open to ambiguity, 
whence the same conflict of views is witnessed 
among you, as in other Protestant communities. 
As you refer to the ancient creeds, it may be 
fair to ask you, on what ground you assign them 
such high authority to determine the meaning 
of Scripture ? The origin of the simplest form, 
called the Apostles' Creed, is a matter of ques- 
tion among critics, who likewise dispute as to 
its correct reading. Its authority must entirely 
rest on its ancient usage in the church. The 
Mcene Creed is a fuller development of it, made 
with a view to exclude the errors of Arius and 
Macedonius, by authority of the Councils office 
and Constantinople. If their right to enlarge 



ON THE RULE OP FAITH. 21 

the ancient formulary be admitted, can it be 
consistently maintained that councils of bishops 
do not still enjoy the same power ? Of tbe creed 
called the Athanasian, which contains a still 
clearer exposition of the mysteries of the Trinity 
and Incarnation, together with a declaration of 
the necessity of holding the Catholic faith, under 
pain of eternal damnation, the Church of Eng- 
land professes that it, as well as the other two, 
" ought thoroughly to be received and believed, 
for they may be proved by most certain warrants 
of Holy Scripture :" whilst Episcopalians, in the 
United States, have expunged it altogether from 
their Prayer Book, and even left it free to omit 
the article of the Apostles' Creed : " He descended 
into hell." 

You speak of the great doctrines of the Gospel 
Eaith, embodied in the primitive creeds, as de- 
rived from the Scriptures; but you must be 
aware that the first formulary was not the result 
of Scriptural examination, but a simple profes- 
sion of the leading mysteries traditionally pre- 
served from the earliest period. Although it 
may not be demonstrable that the apostles com- 
posed it, its chief articles were certainly professed 
almost in the same words, throughout all the 
church, antecedently, as is probable, to the writ- 
ing of several books of the 'New Testament. 
They bear no appearance of being framed after 
the perusal of the sacred books. Dr. ^Nevin 
observes : " The creed does not spring from the 



22 ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

Bible. This is plain from its liistory. Its main 
substance was in use before the l^ew Testament 
was formed. Peter's confession, * Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God,' had no such 
origin. It was produced from the living sense 
of Christ's presence itself And so we may say, 
the whole creed, which lies involved in that 
confession, is derived through faith, out of the 
same living ground. It is, of course, in harmony 
with the Bible; for it has to do immediately 
with its central revelation, the mystery of the 
Word made Flesh. It comes not, however, cir- 
cuitously, in the way of reflection and study, 
through its pages. The early church got it not 
jfrom the Bible. Strange that there should be 
any confusion in regard to what is in itself so 
palpable and clear. The Bible is not the prmci- 
ple of Christianity; nor yet the roeJc on which 
the church is built. It never claims this charac- 
ter, and it can be no better than idolatry and 
superstition to worship it in any such view."* 
Yet you, Right Eeverend Sir, gravely speak of 
"the Scriptural Creed," as if its very words were 
contained in the sacred volume. 

In addition to the ancient symbols, you refer 
to the Thirty-nine Articles adopted by the English 
Convocation under Elizabeth, and by the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Convention in America in 
1801, with some very serious modifications. Of 

* Mercersburg Review, July, 1849, Article, The Apostles' Creed. 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 23 

tliem you say : " There is not a single topic de- 
cided by tlie councils and tlie fathers, in the pure 
and primitive ages of the Church, which is not 
here distinctly set forth with the most admirable 
exactness and precision, leaving no room for 
heretical private judgment in any important 
point of Christian doctrine."* The first diffi- 
culty is, what can determine the individual 
member of your communion, to give the un- 
qualified assent of his mind to the Articles them- 
selves ? Are they recommended to him by an 
authority which cannot err ? Does he rely on the 
testimony and judgment of the English Parlia- 
ment, or Convocation, or of the American Con- 
vention ? If he must first satisfy himself, by per- 
sonal examination, that the Articles express the 
doctrines of the early Church, the inquiry will 
be tedious, and the result doubtful. What must 
determine him to receive the decisions of the 
Church in those early ages with entire deference, 
if the Church at the present time has no claim 
on the unreserved assent of his mind ? Truly, 
there is much room for private judgment on all 
those points, as long as an infallible authority is 
not claimed and exercised. Besides, few find 
the Articles themselves so clear and definite as 
you represent them, which is the cause of the 
existence of two great divisions among you, 
the High and Low Church divines, whose dif- 

* Vol. 1, p. 15. 



24 ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

ference of views regards points of great import- 
ance. Tlie Articles are generally considered as 
directing the individual. judgment, rather than 
determining it, which is impossible, for the want 
of adequate authority. They are not regarded 
by the very ministers who subscribe to them, as 
binding them to assent, but rather as points to 
be respected in their public teaching, and have 
been styled, not improperly. Articles of Peace, 
Paley observes : " They who contend that no- 
thing less can justify subscription to the Thirty- 
nine Articles, than the actual belief of each and 
every separate proposition contained in them, 
must suppose that the legislature expected the 
consent of ten thousand men, and that in per- 
petual succession, not to one controverted pro- 
position, but to many hundreds. It is difficult to 
conceive how this could have been expected by 
any, who observed the incurable diversity of 
human opinion upon all subjects short of demon- 
stration."* In order effectually to control Scrip- 
tural interpretation, they must be supported by 
some authority better than an English Act of 
Parliament, and there must be some tribunal 
to determine their meaning. The Church of 
England claims, indeed, "authority in contro- 
versies of faith," but she nullifies her claim, by 
avowing her liability to err in her decision. 
Thus the guidance on which you rely is unsatis- 
factory, and you are left, like other Protestants, 

* Pliilosoi)])y, Book ITT. Cliup. 22. 



ON THE RULE OP FAITH. 25 

witli the Bible alone, to interpret it as you judge 
proper. 

The individual is placed above the Church in 
the very article in which her authority is affirmed : 
*'yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain 
anything that is contrary to God's word written ; 
neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, 
that it be repugnant to another." This presumes 
that the Church is capable of abusing her au- 
thority, by commanding what is opposed to the 
Scripture, and by expounding the text so as to 
involve contradiction. The individual must ne- 
cessarily judge for himself, whether she has in 
fact so erred. He must examine and compare 
the texts, in order to satisfy himself that she has 
not abused her authority. 

You have no reason, then, to find fault with 
Dr. Milner, for saying that your rule is the Bible, 
as interpreted by each reader for himself, since 
you say the same in substance : "On this ground 
we stand, and we ask no other. The Scriptures 
as the Rule of Faith, according to the primitive 
Catholic interpretation, with the right of private 
judgment, in order to decide what that interpreta- 
tion was.'"^ I fancy I hear some citizen whose 
principles have been represented as inconsistent 
with law and order, inasmuch as he professes to 
respect the laws only as far as he understands 
them, without reference to the authority of the 

* Vol. 1, p. 2S6. 
3 



26 ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

legal tribunals. He repels tlie imputation as 
groundless, because lie accepts them as they were 
expounded by the judges soon after their enact- 
ment ; but he insists that he must be allowed to 
determine for himself what their decisions were, 
and how far they are applicable to his circum- 
stances. By claiming for the individual the 
right to determine for himself, what waa the 
primitive Catholic interpretation, you give him 
indirectly the right to determine the meaning of 
the sacred text itself, and thus fall back on the 
common ground of Protestants, the Bible as in- 
terpreted by each one's private judgment. 

In truth you have no doctrinal tribunal which 
can exercise this authority, claimed in the Ar- 
ticles. In England, the whole Church authority 
is concentrated in the Queen and Privy Council, 
who seem disposed to leave questions open ra- 
ther than to decide them, as was seen in the Gor- 
ham case regarding baptismal regeneration. In 
this country the General Convention is your 
highest tribunal, which, I presume, may at most 
censure some individual for teaching erroneous 
doctrines, contrary to the pledges given at his 
ordination. In such a case the s^^mbols and Ar- 
ticles would naturally be referred to, and their 
obvious meaning insisted on ; but as many con- 
troversies have been raised on them, no decision 
in any special case is likely to be given or to ob- 
tain weight so as to ^x the meaning beyond dis- 
pute. You have then, practically, no rule of 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 27 

faith beyond tlie Presbyterians, Metbodists, or 
other sectaries, who claim and exercise a similar 
right over their preachers, suspending or dis- 
missing them for teaching doctrines opposed to 
their confessions of faith. This exercise of au- 
thority is merely disciplinary, not capable of de- 
termining the assent of the mind, since it ema- 
nates from a tribunal confessedly liable to err. 
The Articles may serve as guides to influence 
and direct the judgment of the individual, and 
as rules by which to try and judge him, in case 
his teaching be deemed erroneous ; but they al- 
together fail in that which is essential to a rule 
of faith, which is, to determine the revealed doc- 
trines, so that they may be accepted and held 
with entire certainty. 

In confining the rule of faith to the ancient 
symbols or to the Thirty-nine Articles, you leave 
without protection all the revealed doctrines 
which are not formally embraced and specified 
in them. Any truth recorded in the Sacred 
Scriptures ought certainly to be received with 
the homage of our understanding ; yet it may 
not be directly stated in those formularies. K 
the Church can only point to them, vsithout ven- 
turing beyond their specifications, her authority 
as the witness of revealed doctrine becomes null 
in all cases of this character. In all cases what- 
soever it is necessarily null as regards the assent 
of the mind, which it cannot claim, unless it has 
a divine assurance of infallibility. 



28 ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

You are most unfortunate, Right Reverend 
Sir, in referring to tlie Council of Chalcedon as 
forbidding any symbol of faith, or definition of 
doctrine beyond the formulary wbich is called 
the Mcene Creed. These fathers were, indeed, 
for a time indisposed towards the adoption of 
any new formulary ; but finding that certain 
Egyptian monks, infected with the Eutychian he- 
resy, made no difficulty in assenting to the sym- 
bol of 'Nice, they deemed it necessary to exact 
of them a fuller profession of faith, directly op- 
posed to the error of which they were suspected. 
Accordingly they drew up a decree, in which they 
accepted, in the first instance, the Mcene Creed, 
with the additions made by the Council of Con- 
stantinople, to exclude the heresy of Macedo- 
nius. They begin by remarking that "the wise 
and salutary symbol of divine grace (the Kicene 
symbol) was sufficient for the knowledge and 
confirmation of piety ; but since those who en- 
deavor to reject the preaching of truth, have in- 
vented new terms, according to their respective 
heresies, on this account this present holy, great, 
and universal synod, wishing to close against 
them all devices against the truth, teaching this 
doctrine which is immovable from the begin- 
ning, has decreed before all things that the faith 
of the three hundred -and eighteen holy fathers 
should remain entire and inviolate." In like 
manner they approved the synodical letter of St. 
Cyril of Alexandria, to which the fathers of 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 29 

Epliesus had assented, as a correct exponent of 
tlie symbol, and an antidote against tlie error of 
l^estorius. To all these they added " the letter 
of the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, 
prelate of the great and ancient city of E-ome, 
written to the Archbishop Flavian, of blessed 
memory, to correct the perverse interpretation of 
Eutyches, which letter is in accordance with the 
confession of the great Peter, and is like a great 
pillar of truth against erroneous teachers, serving 
for the confirmation of the true doctrines." They 
then embody the substance of the letter in their 
definition, and it is only at the end of this long 
document, that they use those words, which you 
have quoted, as referring to the Mcene symbol : 
" These things, therefore, being arranged by us 
with all care and diligence, this holy and gene- 
ral synod has defined that it is lawful for no one 
to utter, write, or compose any other faith, or to 
think, or to teach others difierently."* So far, 
then, from condemning by anticipation the defi- 
nitions of Trent, the Council of Chalcedon 
broadly affirmed the right of the Church at all 
times to meet the devices of heretics by a more 
formal and precise definition of the doctrines 
which are assailed, and added to the ancient 
symbol a long declaration, which it required all 
to subscribe, under penalty of forfeiting the com- 
munion of the Church. There is no way of jus- 

* T. 11. Cone. Col. 455. 
3* 



30 ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

tifying your restriction of this canon to the M- 
cene symbol, unless by supposing that you did 
not read the paragraph in which it occurs. It is 
for you to explain it. The object of the decree 
was to prevent any new formulary which might 
conceal the condemned errors on the points then 
at issue, and to make it obligatory on all to re- 
ceive, not only the symbol of Mce in its enlarged 
form, but alSo the dogmatical definition of St. 
Leo. It never entered into the mind of the Coun- 
cil to restrain future councils from exercising 
the same authority against e^^ery novel error. 

Your boasting of the Prayer-Book and Cate- 
chism is vain, since although written in the ver- 
nacular tongue, they give occasion to much dis- 
cussion as to the true teaching of the Church of 
England, and her American daughter, and ac- 
cordingly leave your members uncertain and 
discordant. "We are abundantly provided with 
means of instruction for all classes, whereby we 
give them certain knowledge of the doctrines of 
the Church. They learn the Apostles' Creed 
from their infancy ; they have the Creed of Mce 
in their Prayer-Book, and use it when assisting 
at the holy sacrifice, at which it is solemnly 
sung ; and they recite the Athanasian Creed, 
whenever their devotion prompts them, whilst 
the clergy are bound to its recital in the office 
for Sunday. Our Catechisms are plain and 
explicit. The teaching of the clergy everywhere 
is uniform, and their efibrts to impress the great 
truths of religion on the minds of their hearers 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 31 

are incessant ; so that we have all the advantages 
which you prize, without the divisions which 
distract and perplex you. It matters not that 
each channel of communication be not absolutely 
free from all danger of error, for from the variety 
of ways in which we are instructed, publicly and 
privately, by preaching and in writing, we have 
fall certainty of what the doctrine of the Church 
is, so that we can give an unqualflied assent to 
her teaching, as she is the pillar and ground of 
the truth. This necessaiy foundation of faith is 
wanting to you. "With whatever force the tes- 
timonies of Scripture may strike you, however 
clearly the faith of the ancient church may be 
expressed in the symbols, however strong may 
be the language of your Prayer-Book and Cate- 
chism, doubt may still haunt your minds, because 
you have no infallible authority on which to 
rely. You may persuade yourselves that you 
have arrived at a correct conclusion, but the 
Protestant principle of private judgment isolates 
you, notwithstanding your church connections, 
and your assent to any revealed doctrine, pro- 
perly analyzed on your own principles, and by 
your own showing, amounts to this : I believe 
that this doctrine is contained in Scripture, 
because it is in harmony with the primitive 
interpretation ; and I believe such to be the pri- 
mitive interpretation, because my own judgment 
convinces me of the fact. This, I respectfully 
submit, is an act of faith in your own private 
judgment. 



LETTEEIIL 

Right Reverend Sir : 

DR. MILNER states, tliat "If Christ had in. 
tended that all mankind should learn His 
religion from a book, namely, the 'New Testa- 
ment, he himself would have written that book, 
and would have laid down as the first and funda- 
mental principle of his religion, the obligation 
of learning to read it." This you call "an im- 
pious attempt to lessen the Divine authority of 
the Scriptures," " an impious slur upon the Word 
of God," "an infidel suggestion!" "a most 
irreverent and blasphemous specimen of argu- 
mentation." Abuse is no reply. You should 
have shown, at least, that Christ supplied the 
wants of men, by ordering the sacred penmen 
to write down, either severally, or collectively, 
His whole revelation ; you should have proved 
that they actually undertook and accomplished 
the task, and gave the command to all to read 
the book, with a promise of divine aid to under- 
stand it. Instead of this course, you lose patience, 
because the Catholic apologist points to facts, 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 33 

which show that the inspired books were writ- 
ten on special occasions for particular ends, and 
do not appear as designed to form a complete 
collection, or doctrinal summary. Your six- 
teenth letter is indeed declamatory and abusive, 
wholly unworthy of a calm disputant. "We 
charge on our Lord no incongruity, since we 
show that he established a ministry, to deliver 
all whatsoever He had taught, and He promised 
to be with them to the end of time. The writing 
of some books by inspired men did not annul 
this commission, but facilitated its execution, 
by recording it, and placing on record likewise, 
much of that which was to be delivered. All 
you say about our putting tradition above the 
written word is mere assertion ; we unfeignedly 
venerate the Scripture, and guard against its 
abuse by holding fast to the teaching which 
comes down from the Apostles. The diJfference 
between you and us is this, that you affirm that 
the writing of the books of the 'New Testament 
superseded the apostolic commission, inasmuch 
as the written word was thenceforth to be the sole 
guide of the teachers in the Church. This we 
challenge you to prove. We hold that the com- 
mission by its very terms extends to the consum- 
mation of the world, and that the inspired books 
must be declared and expounded by the pastors 
of the Church, in accordance with the faith 
originally delivered. You say the Apostles were 
the lawgivers of the Church, — the bishops are 



34 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

judges, wlio expound the law. We hold that 
the Apostles were witnesses of what had heen 
revealed, and lawgivers in regard to discipline, 
and all that appertains to order. They taught 
not as of themselves, but they merely delivered 
that which Christ had taught ; they being en- 
lightened by the Holy Ghost to deliver it accu- 
rately. Their preaching comprised the whole 
counsel of God. Their writings contained the 
same things as they preached, but not as fully, 
or as distinctly as their discourses, incidental 
references being sometimes made to matters 
which they had already fully explained by word 
of mouth. We demand proof that they purposed 
to give a full written statement of the whole 
revealed doctrine. They were lawgivers, in- 
vested with ample power to legislate for the 
church ; but they have left us no code of laws. 
Some of their ordinances are found here and 
there recorded, but nothing like a formal state- 
ment of them occurs in the sacred writings. To 
assign, then, to the bishops of the Church the 
mere office of judges, confined to the duty of 
expounding and applying the law, is to circum- 
scribe it within narrow limits. They inherit the 
governing power granted to the Apostles, and 
they can consequently make laws for the Church, 
over which the Holy Ghost has placed them. 

You evade, rather than meet the objection of 
Dr. Milner, that the Church of England has no 
sufficient evidence of the inspiration of the Bible, 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 35 

by replying: "We have all the evidence that 
exists, and there can he no more." Not so, dear 
sir; you must show that you are entitled to use 
this evidence. There may be an excellent title 
to an estate, which is not available to any one 
but the rightful claimant. You accuse Dr. 
Milner of "an atrocious misrepresentation," as 
charging the Reformers with rejecting the truth, 
which the Church of Eome derives from the 
pure ages of primitive antiquity, because they 
rejected the errors which she had superadded. 
This is not the charge. "We hold them to be 
inconsistent in retaining the Bible, whilst they 
charge with corruption and idolatry the Church, 
which is its witness and guardian. We chal- 
lenge you to show why you believe the Bible to 
be the inspired word of God. Its authenticity, 
as a collection of books, is not in question. You 
may prove this as you would that of any profane 
work: but what certainty have you that it is 
God's revelation to man? "As for me," says 
St. Augustin, " I would not believe the Gospel, 
were I not moved to it by the authority of the 
Catholic Church."* You reject this authority, 
and yet you profess to venerate, as divine, all 
the books which you include in the canon. In 
separating from the communion of the Catholic 
Church, the Church of England forfeited all her 
titles derived from that connection, and in order 

* Ep. contra Fundani. 



36 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

to be a consistent witness to tlie Bible, she needed 
a new revelation. 

Althougb many internal indications of its 
divine origin may be discovered in the Scripture, 
unqualified faith in its inspiration needs external 
testimony — no other than the tradition of the 
Church, which, from the beginning, has been 
its depositary and guardian. To say that it 
proves itself, is begging the question. To allege 
that we know it to be divine by the secret teach- 
ing of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, is to open 
the way to fanatical illusions, and take from it 
the credibility which might command the respect 
of unbelievers themselves. The testimony of 
the Church at present is but the echo of tradition. 
Dr. ]N"evin observes: " There is not merely room 
thus, but an absolute necessity for what may be 
styled a true Christian tradition in the Church, 
not as something against the Bible or foreign 
from it ; but still not as a mere derivation either, • 
or efflux simply from its pages; a tradition 
which starts from the original substance of 
Christianity itself, as it underlies the Bible, and 
which, in such form, becomes the living stream 
into which continuously the sense of the Bible 
is poured, through the Holy Ghost, from age to 
age, onward to the end of the world."* 

Dr. Milner uses the common law of England 
to illustrate tradition. It comprises all princi- 

* Mei('erfel)it.rg Review, July, 1849, Article, The Apostles' Creed. 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 37 

pies of jurisprudence whicli have been, from 
time immemorial, adopted by the judicial tribu- 
nals as rules by which the cases submitted to 
their judgment, and not regulated by special 
statute, should be decided. The principles 
themselves do not form a written code, being 
nowhere recorded, but being gathered from 
the decisions of the courts. The doctrines 
handed down by tradition, are in like manner 
known with certainty from the uniform judg- 
ment of the ecclesiastical tribunals. Yet they 
are far from being destitute of written evidence, 
since the Scriptures embody most of them, or 
allude to them ; the ancient fathers record them, 
and the various ecclesiastical documents of the 
early ages bear witness to them. Besides, they 
are supported by the public and solemn prac- 
tices of the Church, in the most ancient times, 
which are necessarily connected with them. 
Thus they are recommended to us by evidence 
far more satisfactory than that which is offered 
for the common law. You remark that the 
Church, being a divine institution, could not 
have mere custom as the origin of her laws. 
The question is not, indeed, of laws, which cer- 
tainly might originate in custom, but of re- 
vealed doctrines. These could not arise from 
custom ; but public usage, especially in worship, 
may be one of the evidences of revelation, which 
is all that Dr. Milner meant by the comparison. 
If Christ had given us a written summary of 



38 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

doctrine, and a code of laws, your reasoning as 
to tlie office of bishops as expositors and judges 
miglit be just; but as he gave neither, and as 
the sacred penmen did not profess to give 
either, the commission to preach remains in its 
full force, and guarantees the teaching of the 
Apostolic ministry to the end of time. 

You can never determine with certainty the 
canon of divine books, unless by the testimony 
and judgment of the Catholic Church. The 
books which the Church of England treats as 
apocryphal, were venerated by the whole church 
as divine during ages. This conviction sur- 
vived the schism, since even under Edward YI. 
no distinction was made between the various 
books, and many passages from them are quoted 
in the Homilies as dictates of the Holy Ghost. 
In re-opening the question afterwards, on the 
plea that they were not included in the Jewish 
canon, an undue importance was given to it, to 
the neglect of Apostolic tradition. Even the 
Hellenist Jews united them in a volume with 
the inspired writings, as Beveridge testifies,* 
giving them great authority, and acknowledg- 
ing them to be highly instructive, although they 
did not regard them as of the same divine cha- 
racter as the others. From them the early 
Christians received them with high veneration. 
S. Augustin observes, " We must not omit those 
books which were ^vritten before the coming: of 

* Codex Can. Prim. Eccl. 1. ii c. ix. 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 39 

the Saviour, for although they be not received 
by the Jews, they are received by the church of 
the Saviour himself. ' ' * The doubts which existed 
for a time in the minds of some fathers regard- 
ing their authority, arose from attending to the 
Jewish canon ; but the general tradition of the 
Church is apparent from their writings, since 
even they frequently quote the books in ques- 
tion as divine. The canon was settled by the 
Councils of Carthage and Rome in the fourth 
and fifth centuries, and by the authority of 
Popes Innocent and Gelasius. The Council of 
Florence recognized all the sacred books, pre- 
cisely as the fathers of Trent afterwards. If 
some discrepancies be found in certain manu- 
scripts of the ancient catalogues as to the 
number of the books of the Macchabees, or 
if some other books be omitted, it belonged to 
the Church to pronounce judgment on them de- 
finitively, and thus settle the matter for ever. 
Deny her this right, and you leave the Scrip- 
tures to be the sport of human pride, one man 
adding, and another taking away. The words 
of S. Jerom, that the Church reads them for edi- 
fication, not with a view to establish dogmas, 
mean, that she does not rely on their authority 
for convincing unbelievers ; but she has always 
read them as God's holy word, which all should 
receive with faith and submission. It is in vain 
that the Church of England seeks to take shelter 
under the authority of this father. 

* In Speculo. 



40 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

They who question the right of the Church to 
put in her canon, books which the Jews did not 
hold to be inspired, undervalue greatly the tra- 
dition of the Apostles. The early Christians 
read the Scriptures in the Greek version of the 
Septuagint, which the Apostles always cited, 
and which contained all the books bound up 
together. The Apostolic writings and the Gos- 
pels have many allusions and references to these 
books. The earliest fathers, such as Irenseus, 
quote them like other Scripture. Beveridge 
testifies, that in the days of St. Cyprian, they 
were received equally as the other inspired 
books.* If the doubt which subsisted in the 
minds of some as to their divine origin should 
have prevented their acceptance by the Church, 
how were various books of the l^ew Testament 
admitted as canonical, although doubts had been 
entertained of their authority ? 

The canon of Trent agrees with those of Car- 
thage and of Kome. Baruch was included in 
the ancient lists under the name of Jeremiah, 
whose scribe he was. Two books of Macchabees, 
as in the canon of Carthage, are found in some 
manuscripts of the council under Gelasius ; but 
if the common reading be retained, it may be that 
both books were regarded as one, since only one 
book of Esdras is likewise mentioned. In speci- 
fying the parts of Daniel which regard the His- 
tory of Susanna, and the Hymn of the Three 

* Codex Can. Prim. Eccl. 1. ii. c. ix. 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 41 

Youths in the Furnace, you lead the reader to 
suppose that these were omitted in the ancient 
lists ; whereas, the book of Daniel, as it was read 
in the churches, included them. The Council 
of Trent, therefore, only held up to veneration 
the books which in the fourth and fifth centuries 
were regarded as canonical. The language of 
St. Gregory, that the books of the Macchabees 
do not appertain to the canon, has reference to 
the Jewish canon. You are wrong in saying 
that the Church has added to the Bible, " books 
which the voice of all antiquity had excluded 
from the canon." The canon of Laodicea, on 
which you rely, is, in the judgment of some 
learned critics, supposititious. Paley admits that 
it had no binding force beyond the province in 
which it was enacted.* 

You have not. Right Eeverend Sir, explained 
how a Church of England-man, or an Episcopa- 
lian, can make an act of faith in the divine in- 
spiration of the Scriptures. You call it "folly 
and effi'ontery" to doubt of it; "for how can 
Christian men have faith in anything, if they 
cannot have it in the written word of God?"t 
But this is no answer to the question. You say? 
indeed, that "the law of the Christian faith 
given to the Church, in the IsTew Testament, 
could only be identified by the authority of the 
church: J as our general constitution can only 

* Evidences of Christianity, ch. ix. § 6. t P- 336. | P. 334. 
4^ 



42 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

be known by the testimony of tbe nation." But 
if the testimony of the Church be merely human, 
if it go no farther than to certify the authenti- 
city of the books called the New Testament, — 
how can you hold them to be the inspired word 
of God? We recognize the Church by her 
marks and characters as a divine institution, 
and we accept her testimony as worthy of all 
belief, so that we venerate the written word on 
her authority, as Augustin did. The perusal of 
it confirms us in our belief of her divine com- 
mission. In this proceeding, it is easy to per- 
ceive how faith is formed ; but you refer to the 
Church only as to the witness of the written con- 
stitution and law of Christ, who gave nothing 
in writing, and from your examination of what 
you designate such, you profess to hold her 
divine constitution. This cannot be faith. 

Dr. Milner reproached the Church of England 
with wilful corruptions of the sacred text. You 
admit two instances of erroneous translations, 
but contend that they are of little moment. In 
return, you charge us with three "grave mis- 
representations." Let me first observe that our 
version cannot be suspected of any design to 
misrepresent passages applicable to modern con- 
troversy, since it was made so many ages before 
the Reformation. "Whether the reading of Gene- 
sis iii. 15, be it or she, is a fair matter for critical 
inquiry, which cannot afi*ect the high character of 
the Vulgate, v^hich presents a reading received 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 43 

fi'omthedaysof S.Ambrose.* Sacramentum in 
Latin corresponds to the Greek Eph. v. 31, 
and means mystery. The English term is not 
used with a view to ground a controversial argu- 
ment, but from a close adherence to the Latin, 
which the Rhemish translator chose to observe. 
Hooker remarks that the term was used with 
great latitude by the ancient fathers. The third 
passage, which you brand as "a very gross per- 
version" (Hebrew xi. 21), is vindicated by the 
learned Protestant critic, Tholuck, who says that 
" the Protestant controversialists have very un- 
justly designated this passage of the Yulgate, as 
one of the most palpable of its errors." I need 
not trouble you with the vindication, which is 
supported by the authority of S. Chrysostom and 
Theodoret. Those who choose may find the 
details in Kitto's Cyclopedia, Art. Vulgate, 
Scrivener is there quoted, who says : "In justice 
it must be observed, that no case of wilfal perver- 
sion has ever been brought home to the Yulgate." 
You elsewhere charge the Yulgate and Douay 
versions with not being faithful to the Hebrew, 
because the term "^JjV is rendered in sixteen 
passagesof the Old Testament, "Deus," "God." 
Had you consulted the Septuagint, you might 
have included it in the censure, since dioq is the 
Greek translation. Lifidelity on the part of the 
translator, implies a departure from the meaning 
of the text, which, however, the ancient inter- 

* L. de fuga sseculi, c. vii. 



44 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

preters have faithfully adhered to, since it is 
evident that Grod is figuratively styled a rock. 
" The God of my salvation," or " God my 
Saviour," is certainly expressive of the true 
meaning of all those passages which you render 
"the Eock of my salvation." Pagnini and 
Montanus have given the literal sense, which is 
perfectly consistent with the plainer rendering 
of the Yulgate. The unlearned reader may be 
startled at your array of passages, with the 
Hebrew characters interspersed ; but the learned 
must acknowledge that there is no ground 
whatever for the charge of unfaithfulness. There 
is a commandment, " Thou shalt not bear false 
witness." 

You follow on the track of those who rail at 
the Council of Trent and the Popes, in reference 
to the authentic edition of the Yulgate. The 
Council desired a most accurate edition to be 
made of it, in compliance with which decree, 
Sixtus V. gave his sanction to one prepared by 
learned divines, chosen for the purpose. It was 
soon found to contain about forty typographical 
errors, which the Pope himself marked for cor^ 
rection. After his death a revision of it was 
made on a new basis, namely, with special 
reference to the original texts, which led to 
several alterations, in a subsequent edition, 
published with the sanction of Clement VULL. 
The alleged conflict of authority in respect to 
these versions, is purely imaginary. The Council 



ON THE SCRIPTURES. 45 

sanctioned the Yulgate as a version substantially 
correct, and a safe standard in faith and morals ; 
but as many discrepancies were found in the 
readings, the fathers desired that a most accurate 
version should be prepared. Sixtus Y. directed 
the correctors to confine themselves chiefly to 
the comparison of manuscripts, so as to give as 
correctly as possible the true text of the Yulgate. 
This was successfully done, and the edition was 
sanctioned by him, which implied no more than 
that it was to be received and adopted as a 
standard, which no individual should change. 
The few typographical errors discovered by him, 
disposed him to wish for a more accurate edition, 
which was published by Clement YIII., with 
many other alterations, to render it more con- 
formable to the original texts. This latter 
sanction was of the same character, marking the 
work with the seal of the pontifical approval, so 
that no private individual might attempt any 
change in it. Those who prepared it, freely 
avowed that they left unaltered certain readings 
which appeared to them capable of improve- 
ment. This observation shows the maturity with 
which they had proceeded, and their slowness to 
change what further researches might prove to 
be correct. It also proves that they did not put 
forward the edition as absolutely perfect, but as 
substantially correct and safe. You quote the 
avowal in a tone of triumph, as if it did not do 
honor to the judgment and candor of the learned 



46 ON THE SCRIPTURES. 

men employed in the arduous undertaking. 
The matter itself — the greater or less accuracy 
of the edition — did not fall within the range of 
those things, in which infallibilit}^ is claimed by 
Council or Pontiff. There was no room, 
therefore, for your exclamation : " There we 
have, undoubtedly, a fair specimen of your 
Eoman infallibility." There was no occasion to 
speak of " the audacity " with which Dr. Milner, 
under such circumstances, could presume to 
assail the fidelity of " our English Bible." 



LETTEE lY. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

YOU charge Dr. Milner with proposing tradi- 
tion as a distinct and additional revelation, 
independent of the Scriptures, whilst you pro- 
fess to regard it as the fixed and settled interpre- 
tation of the Scriptures in the Church of God. 
It is of great importance that we should under- 
stand each other. Divine tradition, as main- 
tained by the Catholic Church, is not a revelation 
distinct from the written word, but in its am- 
plest and most correct sense, it includes the 
Scriptures, since it is the whole revealed doctrine 
as handed down in the Church from Christ and 
his Apostles. It certifies the inspiration of the 
Scriptures ; it illustrates them ; and it instructs 
us in several revealed truths, to which they al- 
lude or refer, as also in some which are not there 
recorded. It is properly the entire deposit of 
doctrine as it comes down from the beginning. 
This is the idea of it presented by Dr. Milner, 
whose proofs from S. Irenseus, Tertullian, Ori- 



48 ON THE INTERPRETATION 

gen, Basil, Clirysostom, and Vincent of Levins, 
you seem to have overlooked. I beg to add some 
few passages. S. Iren^eus says: "There being 
such proofs to look to, we ought not still to seek 
amongst others for truth which it is easy to re- 
ceive from the Church, seeing that the Apostles 
most fully committed unto this Church, as unto 
a rich repository, all whatsoever is of truth, that 
every one that willeth may draw out of it the 
drink of life. For this is the gate of life ; but 
all others are thieves and robbers. Therefore we 
ought to avoid them, but to cling with the ut- 
most care to whatever is of the Church, and to 
hold fast to the tradition of truth."* You lay 
stress on those passages, in which Irenseus refers 
to the Scriptures ; but he expressly qualifies these 
references by insisting on interpreting them ac- 
cording to the tradition of the Apostles, as mani- 
fested in the teaching of the Church by the 
bishops. He rejects, indeed, the tradition al- 
leged by the Gnostics, who contended that a 
more perfect doctrine than that which is on re- 
cord had secretly been communicated by the 
Apostles to chosen men, and had been preserved 
in their sect. The Church knows no such clan- 
destine teaching ; her tradition has always been 
publicly taught, and illustrated by her solemn 
usages, so that it was easily discernible through- 
out the world for all who sincerely desired in- 

* Adv. Haer. 1. iii. c. iv. 



OFSCRIPTURE. 49 

struction in the truth, as Irenseus observes : 
" When, on the other hand, we challenge them 
to that tradition which is from the Apostles, 
which is preserved in the churches through the 
successions of presbyters, they are adverse to 
tradition."* 

The early fathers, you allege, appealed to the 
Scripture as the great means of deciding all con- 
troversy. Of Tertullian you say : " He argues 
all questions of doctrine by appealing to Scrip- 
ture, "f Doubtless, he quoted the Sacred Text 
whenever he found it opportune and convincing ; 
and he justly rejected the unauthorized teaching 
of Hermogenes and Marcion, which was void of 
all Scriptural sanction ; but he uniformly rested 
on the interpretation, which had come down from 
the Apostles, and which was gathered from the 
constant teaching of the Church, repudiating 
in the most unqualified terms all attempts to 
determine the revealed doctrines by the mere 
letter of the Scripture, apart from Apostolic tradi- 
tion. In his work " On Prescriptions," by which 
he understands barriers against heresy, he ad- 
vises us not to enter into contests about passages 
of Scripture, they being easily distorted : " there- 
fore there must be no appeal to the Scriptures, 
nor must the contest be constituted in those 
things in which the victory is either none or 
doubtful, or too little doubtful. For even though 
the debate of the Scriptures should not so turn 

* lb. c. 2. t Vol- i- P- 54. 



60 ON THE INTERPRETATION 

out as to confirm each party, tlie order of things 
required that this question should be first pro- 
posed, which now is the only one to be discussed, 
' To whom belongs the very faith ; whose are the 
Scriptures ; by whom, and through whom, and 
when, and to whom, was that rule delivered 
whereby men became Christians V for wherever 
both the true Christian rule and faith shall be 
shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, 
and the true expositions, and all the true Chris- 
tian traditions. If these things be so, so that 
the truth be adjudged to us, as many as walk ac- 
cording to that rule which the Church has handed 
down from the Apostles, the Apostles from 
Christ, Christ from God, the reasonableness of 
our proposition is manifest, which determines 
that heretics are not to be allowed to enter upon 
an appeal to the Scriptures, whom we prove 
without the Scriptures to have no concern with 
the Scriptures."* From your notice of TertuUian, 
your readers would scarcely be prepared to find 
such language from his pen. 

Allow me to add another passage from this 
work : " I^ow whatt he Apostles preached, that 
is, what Christ revealed unto them, I will here 
also rule, must be proved in no other way than 
by these same churches which the Apostles them- 
selves founded ; themselves by preaching to them 
as well viva voce, as men say, as afterwards by 
epistles. If these things be so, it becomes forth- 

* De Preescr, vi. 37. 



or SCRIPTURE. 51 

with manifest that all doctrine which agrees with 
these apostolic churches, the womhs and origi- 
nals of the faith, must be accounted true, as 
without doubt containing that which the churches 
received from the Apostles, the Apostles from 
Christ, Christ from God ; but that every doctrine 
must be judged at once to be false,which savoreth 
things contrary to the truth of the churches, and 
of the Apostles, and of Christ, and of God. It 
remains, therefore, that we show whether this 
our doctrine, the rule of which we have above 
declared, be derived from the tradition of the 
Apostles, and from this very fact, whether the 
other doctrines come of falsehood. We have 
communion with the apostolic churches, because 
we have no doctrine differing from them. This 
is evidence of truth."* 

You supply us. Right Reverend Sir, with texts 
from Clement of Alexandria and other fathers, 
extolling the Scriptures, as we extol them, but 
you leave us to present those passages which 
designate the Church as their necessary inter- 
preter, by means of that apostolic tradition which 
she preserves. "We children, avoiding the 
winds of heresies, which puff up to swelling 
pride, and not believing those who teach other- 
wise than the fathers, are then perfected, when 
we are a church having received Christ the 
head."t Clement defends at large "the cele- 
brated and venerated rule of tradition." J Some 

* De Praescr, v. 21. f Paedag. 1. i, c. v. J Stromat, 1. i. 



bZ ON THE INTERPRETATION 

points of a sublimer kind, lie sajs, liave been orally 
transmitted. " Knowledge itself is that which 
has come down, transmitted without writing to 
a few by successions from the Apostles." "In 
the same manner as if one became, from being 
a man, a brute, as they did who were under the 
drugs of Circe, so he has ceased to be a man of 
God, and faithful to the Lord, who has thrown 
aside the ecclesiastical tradition, and plunged 
into the opinions of human heresies."* 

Origen, you say, "lays down the rule that the 
ministry must prove everything from Scripture, 
not according to their private judgment, but by 
the sense of the Holy Spirit, comparing each 
passage with the rest."t If by this you under- 
stand that he confines the Christian teaching to 
that which is expressly delivered in the Scrip- 
ture, you greatly mistake his meaning, for he 
appeals to apostolic tradition in support of the 
practice of baptizing infants. The passage on 
which you rely, occurs in his commentary on 
St. Matthew, where he speaks of the tradition 
of the Pharisees opposed to the divine command- 
ment, to honor our parents. Indulging his 
genius for mystical interpretation, he insists that 
by an oath, in the text where our Saviour rejects 
the Pharisaical distinctions of oaths made by 
the temple and the altar, " must be understood 
every testimony of Scripture, which is brought 

* lb. l. vii. t Vol i. p. 65. 



OF SCRIPTURE. 53 

forward to confirm and bind fast the word which 
we utter ; so that all Scripture divinely inspired 
is, indeed, the temple of the glory of God, and 
its meaning is as gold. "We should, therefore, 
for a testimony of all the words we utter in teach- 
ing, bring forward the sense of Scripture ; as it 
were confirming the meaning which we give. For 
as all gold out of the temple is not sanctified, so 
every sense which is foreign to the divine Scrip- 
ture, however admirable it may appear to some, 
is not holy, because it is not contained in the 
meaning of the Scripture, which is wont to 
sanctify that meaning only which it has in itself, 
as the temple sanctifies its own gold."* From 
this whole reasoning it is manifest, that Origen 
is only laboring to show, that we should not 
attach to the Scripture a meaning foreign to it. 
He does not say, that the Scripture interprets 
itself, or that we must not have recourse to the 
Church to ascertain its meaning in doubtfal 
places. On the contrary, he cautions us against 
the interpretations of heretics, and against fan- 
ciful interpretations of our own, and directs us 
to adhere to that teaching which is sanctioned 
by the Church. " We must point out," he says, 
"the manifest ways to those who hold to the 
rule of the heavenly Church of Christ, according 
to the succession from the Apostles."t "Let 
Basilides and whosoever agrees with him, be 

* Vol. xii. p. 35, ed. Wirceburgi. 
f T. i. de Princip. p. 164. 
6* 



54 ON THE INTERPRETATION 

left in their impiety ; but for us, let us turn to 
the meaning of the Apostle, according to the 
piety of the ecclesiastical doctrine."* Again, he 
observes, '' Since there are many who think that 
their sentiments are conformable to the doctrine 
of Christ, and some of them think difierently 
from others, let the preaching of the Church, 
handed down from the Apostles by regular suc- 
cession, and continuing in the churches down 
to the present time, be attended to : that only, 
which in no respect departs from the ecclesiasti- 
cal and apostolic tradition, is to be believed to 
be the truth."t These are the views inculcated 
by this celebrated writer, who, had he himself 
followed them out in his interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, would have escaped those errors into 
which an exuberant imagination betrayed him. 

In the defence of the usage of re-baptizing 
those who had received baptism from heretics, 
St. Cyprian rejected the proof from tradition, by 
which the validity of the baptism was defended. 
You recite his testimony as if you approved his 
error. If you do not, how do you maintain the 
contrary by Scripture alone ? Cyprian himself 
strongly insisted on the Lord's tradition for the 
mingling of water with wine in the chalice. J 

S. Athanasius appealed to the Scriptures as 
affording splendid proofs of the divinity of our 

* I. iv. in Ep. ad Rom. 1. v. p. 349. 
t De Princ. praef. n. 2. 
J Ep. Ixiii. ad Cornel. 



OF SCRIPTURE. 65 

Lord, which was defined in the Council at lN"ice 
and declared in the symbol; but he was very 
far from excluding the tradition of the Church 
as the light which must guide us in their inter- 
pretation : " Let us, nevertheless, in addition to 
the above, see the tradition which is from the 
beginning, and the doctrine and faith of the 
Catholic Church, which the Lord indeed com- 
municated, but the Apostles proclaimed, and 
the fathers guarded ; for on this has the Church 
been founded, and he who falls away from this, 
would not be, nor would he ever be called a 
Christian."* You quote him as saying that the 
Nicene fathers gave forth the confession of faith, 
"in order to prove that this was not a new 
opinion, but Apostolical, and that what they set 
forth was not their invention, but the docu- 
ments OF THE Apostles. "t The capitals are 
yours. The text does not say this precisely 

rauT ^(TTiv amp idcda^av 6i oKoqoXoi. The Latin 

translation gives it literally i ^'ea ipsa sunt quoe 
docuerunt apostoU.'* Your object in giving this 
turn to the phrase was evidently to limit the 
teaching of the Apostles to their writings, which 
the text does not warrant. Is this the fidelity 
we are to look for in a respectable contro- 
vertist ? 

Nothing can be plainer from all the writings of 
S. Athanasius, and from the whole proceedings 

• Ep. i. ad Serap. n. 28. 

t De Syn. Arim. et Seleucise Ep. t. i. n. 6. p. 893. 



56 ON THE INTERPRETATION 

in tlie case of Arius, than that the Catholic faith 
was simply propounded as the ancient doctrine, 
supported by Scripture and tradition. No at- 
tempt was made to rest it on Scripture alone ; 
on the contrary, the cavils of the Arians were 
effectually set aside by referring to the faith as 
handed down in the Church, which was accord- 
ingly put forward as the authoritative expres- 
sion of divine truth. Do you seriously believe 
that the mystery of the Incarnation, or the 
divinity of Jesus Christ, can be sustained by 
mere Scriptural passages, whilst so many tes- 
timonies apparently conflicting are arrayed 
against them ? 

The language of S. Cyril of Jerusalem which 
you recite, is directed to inculcate the mystery 
of the Incarnation on the authority of the Scrip- 
tures, and to recommend the symbol of faith — 
the creed styled of the Apostles, as a summary 
of high mysteries taught likewise in the sacred 
books. 'No one can mistake it as designed to 
exclude the traditionary teaching of the Church, 
on which the creed wholly rests. The necessity 
of a living authority to expound the creed and 
the Scriptures appeared most manifestly at that 
very period, since the fathers of Mce deemed it 
all-important to add such expressions as would 
leave no room for the evasions of the Arians. 

You might well have spared yourself the re- 
cital of the eulogies of S. Jerom on the Scrip- 
tures, since in this regard there is no difference 



OF SCRIPTURE. 57 

between us. You are not very accurate in your 
translation. S. Jerom relied on the Eoman 
faith, handed down from the days of Peter and 
Paul, not the mere letter of Scripture — as a pro- 
tection against the errors of Origen, concerning 
which Pammachius et Oceanus had consulted 
him : " Whosoever thou art that assertest new 
dogmas, I pray thee to spare Roman ears, spare 
the faith which was praised by the mouth of the 
Apostle. Why, after four hundred years, dost 
thou endeavor to teach us what we never knew 
before ? Why dost thou bring forward now 
what Peter and Paul did not set forth ? To this 
day the Christian world was ignorant of that 
doctrine ?"* Instead of faith which was praised, 
you have : " Spare tJiem^ because the Romans are 
praised,'' You put in capitals what Peter and 
Paul were unwilling to set forth, leading 
your readers to imagine that S. Jerom's words 
are confined to their writing, whereas they 
plainly embrace their whole teaching as known 
from the tradition and faith of the Roman 
Church. In the same spirit he wrote : " 'Eo- 
thing is dearer to us than to guard the rights 
of Christ, and not to move the landmarks of the 
fathers, and ever to bear in mind the Roman 
faith, commended by the mouth of an apos- 

tle."t 

S. Augustin appealed to the Scriptures as 

* Ad Pammach. et Ocean. 
tT. L Ep. Ixiii. ad Theoph. 



58 ON THE INTERPRETATION 

bearing testimony to the Churcli, especially to 
her catholic character, but he did not set aside 
the authority of tradition on points of which 
they have not distinctly treated. On the con- 
trary, he called the usage of baptizing infants an 
apostolical tradition ;* he maintained " that the 
dead are aided by the prayers of Holy Church, 
and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms 
which are offered for their spirits," because 
*' this has been handed down by the fathers ;"t 
and he upheld the validity of baptism adminis- 
tered by heretics on the same principle.^ 

This short review of your authorities on this 
point, proves that the Scriptures were always 
interpreted in conformity with ecclesiastical tra- 
dition, by which means " the faith once deli- 
vered to the Saints," was preserved unchanged, 
^hen this magnet is not attended to, men 
necessarily are tossed to and fro by every wind 
of doctrine. The rule of traditionary interpre- 
tation was not limited to any particular period, 
or any special controversy.; it was to serve 
always and in all circumstances for distinguish- 
ing divine truth from human errors. 

It has always been the care of the Church to 
guide her children in the reading of the Scrip- 
tures by the light of ancient tradition : for which 
reason she has caused them to be publicly read 

* T. III. de Gen. ad lit. I. x. n. 39. 

fT. V. Serm. clxxii. n. 2. 

J T. ix. 1. II. de Bapt. contra Donat. n. 12. 



OF SCRIPTURE. 59 

in the celebration of the holy sacrifice, and to 
be expounded. The private study of them was 
also strongly recommended by S. Chrysostom, 
S. Jerom, and other holy fathers; but the 
scarcity of manuscripts necessarily confined it 
to few, before the invention of the art of printing. 
In the thirteenth century, for the first time, some 
restriction was placed on it, in consequence of 
its abuse by certain sectaries, who clandestinely 
assembled, and without authority, took on them- 
selves the ofiolce of teachers. Pope Innocent m. 
avowed that the desire to study the Scriptures, 
and to draw from them matter of exhortation, 
is praiseworthy, rather than blamable; yet he 
rebuked the presumptuous temerity of such 
sectaries, and forbid the laity to have the books 
of the Old or !N"ew Testament, with the excep- 
tion of a Psalter, a Breviary, or the Ofiice of the 
Blessed Virgin. This prohibition grew out of 
the abuse, and was but local and temporary; yet 
you do not fail to note it down in order to foment 
public prejudice. At no time whatever was the 
Bible a sealed book for the laity, although during 
the rage of controversy, in the sixteenth century, 
certain qualifications, namely, instruction and 
piety, were demanded in the readers. The 
actual discipline of the Church leaves it en- 
tirely fi:'ee, provided the version be approved, and 
have notes taken from Catholic sources.* You 

* See Addition to IV. Rule of Index Deer. S. Cong. Ind., 13 
Junii, 1757. 



60 ON THE INTERPRETATION, ETC. 

assert that "the Church has forbidden the laity 
to have the Bible in the vulgar tongue, by the 
decrees of many Popes and Councils, and has 
only allowed it since the Reformation, under 
great restrictions, through fear and necessity." 
The contrary is the fact. ISTo such general pro- 
hibition was ever made. The Fourth Eule of 
the Index, which imposes the simple restrictions 
above stated, was a consequence of the abuses 
which marked the Reformation, and even these 
restrictions have been removed in regard to all 
approved versions. Pius YI., in accepting the 
Italian translation of the Bible by Martini, Arch- 
bishop of Florence, expressly said that the Scrip- 
tures should be left open to all, to draw from 
them purity of morals and of doctrine, and to 
eradicate the most corrupt errors which are 
prevalent. It is a singular fact, yet incontro- 
vertible, that the first restrictions on the reading 
of the Bible in English, emanated from Henry 
YIII. by Act of Parliament* "The Holy 
Bible," as Sir Thomas More attests, " was long 
before "Wickliffe's days, by virtuous and well 
learned men translated into the English tongue, 
and by good and godly people, with devotion and 
soberness, well and reverently red."t 

* 34th Henry VIII. 1. f ^^ial. iii. 14. 



LETTER V. 

§u Hit Bmmmnts. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

AS Dr. Milner and yourself are not greatly at 
variance in regard to tlie definition of a 
sacrament, I shall not enter into any discussion 
on the subject. In the Catholic view some out- 
ward or sensible sign is required, to which grace 
is attached by the institution of Christ. You 
deny that confirmation can be considered such, 
because its divine institution is not recorded, 
and there is no visible sign or symbol of the 
grace conferred. We deem this an instance fit 
to illustrate the doctrine of tradition. From the 
fact, which is stated by the sacred historian, that 
Peter and John, at the instance of the other 
Apostles, went to Samaria, to impart the Holy 
Ghost to the neophytes whom Philip had bap- 
tized, and that by prayer and the imposition of 
hands, the Holy Ghost was, in effect, communi- 
cated, we infer the divine institution of this rite, 
since the acts of the Apostles furnish the best 
evidence of the power given to them by Christ. 
This inference is supported by the perpetual 



62 ON THE SACRAMENTS. 

usage of tlie Cliurcli, which, has always recog- 
nized in her prelates the same power. Tradition, 
then, supports our reasoning on the Scripture, 
and illustrates what is compendiously stated by 
the sacred penman. There is a visible sign, 
namely, the laying on of hands with prayer, for 
although this action might be indefinite in itself, 
it is determined, by the accompanying prayer, to 
mark the descent of the Holy Spirit on the can- 
didates. It is not necessary to determine the 
precise time of the institution, it being sufficient 
to know that the Apostles must have had a divine 
warrant to undertake it. Our theologians con- 
jecture, with great probability, that during the 
forty days after the resurrection, in which our 
Lord appeared to His disciples, ^'speaking of 
the kingdom of God,"* He instructed them on 
this and other points, for, as St. Leo well re- 
marks, "these forty days, between the resurrec- 
tion and ascension, did not pass away idly, but 
great sacraments were confirmed in them, great 
mysteries were revealed. "f The anointing with 
chrism in performing this rite is a very ancient 
usage, of which mention is made by Tertullian, in 
the second century. This warrants the presump- 
tion that it was practised and prescribed by the 
Apostles ; nor is the silence of the historian any 
proof to the contrary, since it is clear that he took 
on him to state facts, without entering into details 
of rites or ceremonies. Granting that it is only of 

* Acts i. 3. t Serm. 1, de Ascensione, n. 2. 



ON THE SACRAMENTS. .63 

ecclesiastical origin, it is still venerable for its 
antiquity, and is an apt symbol to express the 
unction of the Holy Spirit. You mistake in 
supposing that we substitute it for the laying on 
of hands;* since the extension of the hands of 
bishops over all who await confirmation, accom- 
panied by a solemn prayer to God to send down 
His Holy Spirit, with His sevenfold gifts, is itself 
a laying on of hands. 

Penance does not appear to you entitled to be 
regarded as a sacrament. Inasmuch as the 
Scriptures always commanded repentance, you 
argue that it could not have been instituted by 
Christ. Could He not give to the act of the 
penitent a sacramental virtue, by attaching to it 
pardon, to be pronounced by His representative ? 
What He actually vouchsafed to do is inscribed 
on the sacred pages. He gave to His Apostles 
the power of remitting and retaining sin, in 
which is necessarily included the right to take 
cognizance of the sins to be remitted or retained. 
You say that auricular confession and sacerdotal 
absolution were the work of the thirteenth cen- 
tury. Yet you had before you the testimonies 
of Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Paulinus, and Au- 
gustin, quoted by Dr. Milner, which clearly prove 
that confession of sin was made to the priests 
in their respective times, even as far back as the 
second century. St. Pacianus and St. Ambrose 

* p. 307. 



64 ON THE SACRAMENTS. 

speak of absolution granted to penitents, by the 
commandment of Christ our Lord. 

Extreme unction, although plainly commanded 
by St. James, the Apostle, is expunged by Pro- 
testants from the roll of the sacraments. You 
maintain that the text has reference to a miracu- 
lous operation, by which sick persons recovered 
health. Is it probable that a regular mode for 
effecting miraculous cures was prescribed by the 
Apostle ? Were miracles directed to be wrought 
by a certain class — ^the presbyters ? Was a cure 
to be effected in all cases, so as to become an 
ordinary occurrence? Such is not the view 
which the Scriptures give us of the wonders of 
Divine power, which are wrought in extraordi- 
nary cases to attest revealed truth, or show forth 
the Divine attributes. The promise of our Lord, 
that His disciples should lay hands on the sick, 
and effect their cure, cannot be understood of a 
uniform or frequent act, but of occasional 
displays of the power and goodness of God, 
through the agency of His ministers and ser- 
vants. You cannot explain the anointing as a 
laying on of hands, since you deny it to be such 
in the rite of confirmation. The prayer of faith, 
to which the salutary effect of the act is ascribed, 
is justly understood of the words which are 
uttered whilst the sick man is anointed. 
The Greek term oma&t, rendered "will save," 
in scriptural usage, means to sanctify, or to 
secure the eternal salvation of the soul. The 



I 



ON THE SACRAMENTS. 65 

term, kystpsi, "raise him up," may be explained 
of exciting, or animating, as well as of restoring 
to health, and it is verified by the communication 
of grace, whereby the sick person is supported 
in his last agony. You observe "that not the 
anointing, but the prayer of faith, shall save 
the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." 
The mere anointing could have no virtue, unless 
its sacramental character were determined by 
the accompanying prayer, as St. Augustin ob- 
serves in regard to baptism : " Take away the 
word, and what is water but water ? The word 
is added to the element, and the sacrament is 
completed."* A few lines above, you referred 
the efiect to the laying on of hands, according 
to the prediction of our Saviour, and now you 
maintain that it results wholly from the prayer. 
The sickness of which the Apostle speaks is, 
that which is attended with danger of death, the 
Greek term a^^evst, being the same as is em- 
ployed when Lazarus was reported to be in a 
dying state. f The effects of the sacraments 
arising from their Divine institution, are properly 
ascribed to God, who alone can pardon sin, and 
confer the gifts of grace ; the priest being only 
His agent, and the representative of Christ. 
Thus, sir, all your objections are shown to be 
groundless, whilst this rite, which has always 
been practised in the Church, is warranted by 

* Tract Ixxx. in Joan. t John x. 3. 

6* 



66 ON THE SACRAMENTS. 

the express words of Holy Writ. Tradition 
here serves to illustrate and enforce this apos- 
tolic precept, which, strangely enough, is wholly 
neglected by sects professing aloud that they are 
guided in all things by the written word. It ill 
becomes you to designate the faithful observance 
of the apostolic command "a pious fraud." It 
is, at least, very unprofitable, since nothing what- 
ever is received on occasion of its performance. 
You deny the sacramental character of orders, 
because they are confined to one small class of 
men. Are they not of sufficient importance to 
have grace attached to them for their proper 
exercise ? You admit that they were instituted 
by Christ; but you remark that priests and 
Levites were already of long standing, divinely 
instituted. "Was it not worthy of Christ to 
bestow on His ministers greater gifts, as well as 
higher powers ? You say, that the Apostles, in 
ordination, used only the imposition of hands, 
with prayer. If to this simple rite was attached 
the communication of power for the office, with 
grace to enable them to exercise it, it is sufficient 
to give it the character of a sacrament. But it 
is wrong to infer that the rite was absolutely so 
simple, from the terms used by the sacred histo- 
rian, since it was foreign to his purpose to enter 
into liturgical details. It was, indeed, when 
sacrificing, or performing solemn worship, that 
the command was given by the Holy Ghost, to 
set apart Paul and Barnabas, for the special 



ON THE SACRAMENTS. 67 

work intrusted to tliem, as was accordingly done 
by the laying on of hands and by prayer. 
Although we are not informed that other cere- 
monies were used, there is nothing in this brief 
statement that necessarily excludes them. Of 
the grace bestowed we have the testimony of 
St. Paul, who admonishes Timothy to stir up the 
grace which was given him by the laying on of 
hands.* 

You find still greater objections to regarding 
marriage as a sacrament, since it was instituted 
in Paradise. Yet, even then it was a mysterious 
type of the fature union of Christ with His 
Church, as the Apostle assures us. It was 
worthy of our Lord to give it sacramental dig- 
nity and character, when that union was con- 
summated by His incarnation. The reasoning 
of the Apostle on it shows its holiness and sub- 
lime signification. The indissoluble force of 
the marriage tie, which our Lord Himself de- 
clares, persuades us that grace must be given to 
enable the parties to bear the perpetual yoke. 
His presence at the wedding of Cana, and the 
miracles which He there performed, show His 
sanction and favor. So many scriptural indica- 
tions are supported by the public and solemn 
teaching of the Church, her perpetual usage and 
tradition. Although none are obliged to marry, 
it is consoling to those who choose this state of 

*2 Tim. i. 6. 



68 ON THE SACRAMENTS. 

life, to know that it is not only lawful, but 
attended with grace and Divine blessing for such 
as properly enter into it. The Church is per- 
fectly consistent in teaching, with St. Paul, that 
the state of celibacy is preferable, which leaves 
the soul at liberty to devote herself wholly to 
the things of God, and yet assuring her children 
that they do not sin by embracing the married 
state, if they take care to prepare themselves for 
the grace which is attached to the sacred con- 
tract. 

St. Augustin, in the passage which you quote, 
speaks of the small number of the Christian 
sacraments compared with the Jewish rites, 
which were called by the fathers in the same 
way. He gives baptism and the communion as 
instances, without meaning to confine the term 
to them. The like occurs in his first discourse 
on the ciii. Psalm, where speaking of the gifts 
of God bestowed alike on the good and wicked, 
he observes that even the sacraments are received 
by them. *'Look to the gifts of the Church 
herself. The gift of the sacraments in baptism, 
in the Eucharist, in the other holy sacraments, 
how great a gift it is ! Even Simon the magi- 
cian obtained it." In another place he describes 
the eagerness of the dying to receive the aids of 
religion, in these terms: "Do we not reflect 
that, when the extreme danger is at hand, and 
there is no possibility of escape, great is the 
rush of persons, of both sexes and of every age, 



ON THE SACRA MENTIS. 69 

in the Church, some demanding baptism, others 
reconciliation, others the assigning of penance 
itself, all of them seeking consolation, and the 
celebration and dispensation of the sacra- 
ments?"* 

You make us. Eight Reverend Sir, great re- 
proaches in regard to the exactions practised in 
the administration of the sacraments, of which 
you allege some instances within your own 
knowledge. You assure us that some Canadians 
applied to you to have their children baptized, 
being unable to pay the fees demanded by the 
priest. I cannot suppose that they were resi- 
dents of Canada, for the discipline of that coun- 
try rigorously forbids the acceptance of the 
smallest fee or offering on such an occasion, and 
the high reputation of the clergy warrants me 
in believing that it is most strictly observed. 
Besides, the journey from the nearest part of 
Canada to Burlington, would cost far more than 
the most avaricious priest could demand. I 
must, then, believe that the application came 
from Canadians, who had settled in your town, 
and I must refer you for explanation to your old 
neighbor and correspondent, who will no doubt 
satisfy you that you have been imposed upon. 
It is seldom that any even nominal Catholics can 
be induced in any circumstances to avail them- 
selves of Protestant ministrations. 

" Quodcumque ostendis inibi sic, incredulus odi." 
* Ep. clxxx, ad Honoratum. 



LETTER VI. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

JEREMY TAYLOR volunteered Ms vindica- 
tion of Catholics from the charge of idolatry 
in adoring the Eucharist, because our intention 
is directed to Jesus Christ, our Lord, whom we 
believe to be present.* Dr. Milner claimed our 
acquittal on the same ground; but you, kindly 
as you profess to be disposed, reject the plea, 
and insist that compared with the Pantheism of 
the old Egyptians, the incarnation of the Grand 
Llama, the adoration of the sun by the Aztecs, 
and the whole range of heathenism, transubstan- 
tiation is the " most inconsistent kind of idolatry, 
and the most degrading to a proper conception of 
the Deity." Yet you might have paused before 
uttering these censures, since we have, at least, 
the respectable authority of St. Augustin for 
adoring this mystery. Commenting on the 
passage, " adore His footstool," which the Pro- 
testant version renders ^'worship at His foot- 
stool," he says, "Since He (Christ) walked in 
the flesh, and He has given us the same flesh to 

* Liberty of Prophesying, sect. xx. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 71 

eat for our salvation, and no one eats without 
first adoring it, we find how this footstool of the 
Lord may be adored, so that not merely are we 
free from sin in adoring it, but we sin, if we do 
not adore it."* 

Your Catechism states, that the inward part 
of the sacrament is the Body and Blood of 
Christ, which " are spiritually taken and received 
by the faithful in the Lord's Supper ;" and yet 
you do not believe them to be really there, since 
it is only by an effort of faith that you become 
partakers of them. You insist that "the divine 
gift is in the sacrament, considered with respect 
to its inward grace, "f Your whole reasoning 
shows, however, that you do not hold the Body 
and Blood to be really there, so that you can 
only mean that the sacrament is directed to 
awaken faith, by which you may receive their 
virtue ; but how can the faithful, as Dr. Milner 
asks, take that which is not there ? Hence it is 
that so many of the Puseyites, and others, pro- 
fess to believe in the real presence, which you 
very evidently reject. 

For the variations of your liturgy in this re- 
spect, you plead that it was only by degrees that 
the eyes of the English Reformers were opened. 
Let this plea have its full force. 

Iii canvassing our evidence, you at once m^eet 

* Enarr. in Ps. xcviii. t Vol. ii. p. 138. 



72 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

the proofs from tlie sixth chapter of St. John by 
a long commentary of St. Augustin, who, like 
the other fathers, often indulges in moral appli- 
cations, or mystical interpretations of the sacred 
text. The carnal understanding of the words 
of our Eedeemer is justly rejected. "Do you 
think that I am about to divide this Body, which 
you behold, into parts, and cut my members 
into pieces, and give them to you ?" He insists 
on our eating spiritually, that is, receiving the 
sacrament with such dispositions as will make 
it profitable to our souls. " Then the Body and 
Blood of Christ will be life to every one of you, 
if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament 
be spiritually eaten and spiritually drank in the 
truth itself. For we have heard the Lord Him- 
self saying, ' It is the spirit that quicken eth; 
the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which 
I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.' "* 
If any doubt could exist as to the spiritual 
eating and drinking here spoken of, it must 
vanish when we attend to these other words of 
the same father. "With faithful heart and 
mouth we receive the Mediator of God and 
men, the man Christ Jesus, giving us His 
Flesh to eat, and His Blood to drink, although 
it seems more shocking to eat human flesh, 
than to destroy it, and to drink human blood, 
than to shed it."t In giving rules for the right 

■^"' Apud Hopkins, vol. ii. p. 141, 

t L. ii. contra advers. legis et proph. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73 

understanding of Scripture, he observes, that in 
case the Scripture appear to enjoin anything 
criminal or cruel, it must be regarded as a figure 
of speech, and he applies this rule to the saying 
of our Lord, " Unless you eat the flesh of the 
Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not 
have life in you." This taken as it sounds 
seems to enjoin a crime, or outrage, namely 
cannibalism. "It is, therefore, a figure, which 
intimates that we should commune with the 
passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably 
treasure up in memory, that his flesh was cruci- 
fied and bruised for us."* The manifest scope 
of this passage is to remove the idea of eating 
the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, in a 
natural and carnal way. Augustin justly insists 
that this cannot be the meaning, because it 
implies what is unnatural and revolting. It 
must then, he says, be understood of commun- 
ing with the passion of our Lord, remember- 
ing his suflerings, and thus becoming partakers 
of his merits. This explanation is not directed 
to exclude the sacramental perception of his 
body and blood, which in the place above 
quoted St. Augustin distinctly affirms. The 
language is strictly applicable to sacramental 
communion, since whilst we receive His Body 
and Blood under the veils of the elements, we 
should commemorate his passion and death, 
according to his command. 

^ De doct. Christ. 1. iii. c. xvi. 

7 



74 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

You adduce Augustin again, to destroy the 
force of the words of the institution. He teaches 
that the sacraments having a certain resemblance 
to the things which they are intended to repre- 
sent, take the names of the things themselves. 
" Therefore, according to a certain mode, the 
sacrament of Christ's Body is the Body of Christ, 
and the sacrament of Christ's Blood is the Blood 
of Christ ; and in like manner the sacrament of 
Faith is Faith."* This language is intended to 
convey to us that what strikes the senses in this 
sacrament — the visible species — is styled the Body 
of Christ, because it is such after a certain mode, 
inasmuch as it marks the presence of His Body. 
In speaking of so great a mystery, it was diffi- 
cult to use words not liable to be misunderstood. 
Whatever obscurity may arise from occasional 
expressions of this kind, is dissipated by the 
clear and positive terms which are elsewhere 
employed. Thus, speaking of the converted 
Jews, he says : " Through grace they drank the 
very blood which they shed in frenzy."t 

The last passage which you object from the 
same father, admits of a similar solution : " Our 
Lord did not hesitate to say, ' This is My Body,' 
when he gave them the sign of His Body."t 
Bread, which had been of old a sign, or type, 
became the Body of Christ, being changed into 
it by his word, when he instituted this sacrament. 

* Op. Aug. t. ii. p. 203, n. 9. t In Ps. Ixv. n. 5. 

^ Contra Adimantum, c. xii. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 75 

Speaking of it elsewhere, he says : " We are fed 
with the cross of the Lord, since we eat his 
Body."* 

Persons unacquainted with the style of Ter- 
tullian, who refers often to a remote antecedent, 
may easily mistake the words which you quote : 
" Our Lord, taking the hread and distributing it 
to His disciples, made it His Body, by saying : 
This is My Body; that is, the figure of my body."t 
His meaning is, that what had been the figure 
of his body, was made his body. He interpreted 
a passage of Jeremiah, wherein mention was 
made of bread, as a t)'pe of the body of Christ, 
and showed against Marcion, that Christ recog- 
nized the works of the Creator, since he used 
bread for the holiest purpose, changing it into 
His Body in the mysteries. "When speaking 
directly and expressly of the Eucharist, his lan- 
guage is most unequivocal : " The flesh," he 
says, "feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, 
that the soul may be fattened of God. "J Of the 
returning Prodigal he says : " He is fed with the 
richness of our Lord's Body, that is, with the 
Eucharist. "§ Speaking of Christian statuaries, 
who made idols for sale, and afterwards ap- 
proached the holy table, as if guiltless, because 
they had not joined in their worship, he says : 
" They lay their hands on the Body of the Lord." 
Of those who advanced to the priesthood, with- 

* In Ps. c. n. 9. t Adv. Marcion, I. iv. 457. 

J L. de resur. earn. § De Pudicitia, 9. 



76 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

out having expiated the sin, he exclaims : " ! 
enormity! the Jews oiFered violence to Christ 
but once ; these men violate His Body daily. O ! 
hands that should be cut off!"* 

You dispose rather summarily of the text of 
the martyr Ignatius, quoted by Dr. Milner. 
Speaking of certain heretics of that early period, 
he says : " They do not admit of Eucharists and 
oblations, because they do not believe the Eucha- 
rist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
that which suffered for our sins."t You observe, 
that it is not stated whether Ignatius meant the 
flesh of our Saviour, in actual substance, or in 
symbol, or figure. The natural import of the 
words leaves no room for doubt. What say you 
to Justin? ''As Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was 
made flesh through the word of God, and took 
flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have 
been instructed that the food which has been 
consecrated by His word of prayer ..... is the 
flesh and blood of that Incarnate Jesus. "J 

It is not necessary to dwell on the passages 
which you have adduced from Origen and Am- 
brose, in order to destroy the force of the testi- 
monies brought forward by Dr. Milner. The 
intelligent reader, having in view the remarks 
already made, will easily distinguish between 
expressions regarding a mystery incidentally 
mentioned, and the plain and positive declara- 

* L. de idololatria. j Vol. ii, p. 148. | Apol. i. 66. 



TR AN SUBSTANTIATION. 77 

tion of its nature solemnly delivered: "This 
Body which we consecrate," says St. Ambrose, 
" is from the Virgin."* " You may, perhaps, say 
that which I see is something diiFerent ; how do 
you prove to me that I receive the Body of 
Christ? This is what it remains for me to 
prove. What examples, therefore, am I to use ? 
Let me prove that this is not that which nature 
has made it, but that which the benediction hath 
consecrated it to be ; and that the force of the 
benediction is greater than that of nature, 
because by the benediction nature herself is 
changed."t " Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself 
proclaims. This is My Body, Before the sacred 
words of benediction another species is named ; 
after consecration the Body is implied. He Him- 
self speaks of His Blood. Before consecration, it 
is spoken of as another thing : after consecra- 
tion, it is named Blood. And you say. Amen, 
that is, it is true. "What your mouth expresses, 
let your inner mind confess — feel what you say."{ 
It will be difficult to persuade any impartial 
reader of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, that his very 
emphatic language concerning the Eucharist 
loses all its meaning, because he employs occa- 
sionally comparisons which are not in all respects 
adequate. He asks most solemnly : " Since, 
then, Christ Himself declares and says of the 
bread, * This is My Body,' who will dare hence- 

* L. (le his qui mysteriis initiantur, c. ix. 

t De Mysteriis, ix. 50. % lb. 54. 



78 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

forward doubt ? and since he affirms and says, 
' This is My Blood,' who shall ever doubt, and 
say that it is not His blood ? At Cana, of Gali- 
lee, he once changed water into wine, which 
resembles blood, and shall we think him un- 
worthy of belief, when He changes wine into 
blood?"* The term d^^riru-Kov^ used by him, as 
also in the liturgies, properly denotes that which 
corresponds to the type, the reality of which the 
type was the shadow. It is used, however, for 
the sacramental species, or sensible elements, by 
St. Cyril, who nevertheless expresses the mys- 
tery in the most unequivocal way: "Do not 
look to them as mere bread and wine, for they 
are the Body and Blood of Christ, according to 
the affirmation of our Lord."t 

The second Council of Mce justly rejected the 
language of the Iconoclasts, who called the Eu- 
charist the image of his vivifying Body, although 
even these did not mean to deny the real pre- 
sence. As the term was equivocal, it was pru- 
dently set aside. Their reasoning on it is con- 
clusive in the circumstances, although it cannot 
determine the force of some terms used by 
ancient writers, whose meaning is to be gathered 
from the context. It is unnecessary to explain 
the passages objected from St. Isidore, who 
wrote in the same spirit of faith. The disputes 

* Cat. xxii. 

■f" Ibidem. See La Perpetuity de la Foi, vol. iv. 1. i. ch. iv. 
Also Wilberforce on the Eucharist, ch. viii. s. 1. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 79 

between Paschasius and his adversaries regarded 
rather the language than the substance of the 
mystery. Berenger, in the eleventh century, 
was the first who boldly questioned the doctrine. 
His errors, which excited general opposition, 
were abjured by himself, by order of various 
councils and popes. There is reason to hope 
that he died in the communion of the Church, 

Because St. Cyprian explains the mystic signi- 
fication of the mixing of water with wine in the 
chalice, the water serving to represent the peo- 
ple, the wine representing the Blood of Christ, 
and explains the grains of wheat, of which the 
bread is formed, as signifying the union of all 
the faithful, you conclude that he must have 
been a stranger to the doctrine of Transubstan- 
tiation. If you examine the passages more at- 
tentively, you will easily discover your mistake. 
He insists on the mingling of water with wine, 
in conformity with the tradition which had come 
down from the Apostles, certifying that our 
Lord had tempered the sacramental wine with 
water; and he took occasion to show, that as 
waters in the Scripture sometimes represent the 
people, and wine is employed in the mystery of 
Christ's Blood, the union was full of significa- 
tion. In like manner he dwelt on the perfect 
union of the members of Christ, of which ,the 
grains of wheat, formed into bread for sacra- 
mental uses, are apt symbols. All this is in- 
structive, but does not regard the nature of the 



80 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

sacrament itself. "When Cyprian speaks of 
apostates who approach communion, without 
having performed suitable penance, in order to 
manifest his horror for their crime, he says: 
"they seize on the Body of the Lord," — "vio- 
lence is oflered by them to His Body and Blood."* 
Whoever will read the entire work "On the 
Fallen," will be satisfied that he not only be- 
lieved the real presence of the Body and Blood 
of Christ in the sacrament, but bore testimony 
to several miracles, by which unworthy commu- 
nicants were divinely punished. 

The language of St. Jerom, which you object, 
admits the like explanations. He spoke of wine 
as having been a type of the Blood of Christ, 
and as being a suitable element to be employed 
in the mysteries. He considered Melchisedech, 
in his ofiering of bread and wine, as foreshadow- 
ing the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
to be presented in the new dispensation. He 
said that our Lord transfigured His Body into 
bread, taking its appearance, as it was an apt 
symbol of the Church, and forming His Blood 
in the cup, mixed with wine and water, which 
were changed into it by His power. When he 
is speaking professedly of the sacrament, he 
uses language that leaves no room for doubt. 
"We all alike receive the Body of Christ."! 
Again, speaking of bishops, he writes: "God 

* L. de lapsis. t L. ii. contra lovinian. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 81 

forbid that I should say anything disrespectful 
of those who succeed to the rank of the Apos- 
tles, and consecrate the Body of Christ with 
their own mouth."* He says, "that deacons 
ought not to rank with priests, by whose prayers 
the Body and Blood of Christ are consecrated. "f 
You ask, Right Reverend Sir, "How does the 
literal meaning of our Lord's words : ' This is 
My Blood, which is shed for you,' agree with 
the unquestionable fact that His blood was not 
actually shed for them until the following even- 
ing ?" By recalling to your recollection the He- 
brew manner of using the tenses, you will easily 
understand that what was soon to take place, is 
expressed by the present participle: the evan- 
gelists having retained their Hebrew style in 
writing in Greek. Hence the old Latin inter- 
preter translates it in the future. It may also 
be understood, with great propriety and strict- 
ness, of the mystical immolation then made un- 
der the sacramental veils, our Lord anticipating 
the bloody offering of the cross, by present- 
ing Himself as victim in the sacrifice which He 
instituted. Bishop Wilson takes it in this sense, 
which is also literal: "He then, at that instant, 
gave His Body and Blood a sacrifice for the sins 
of the world. "J The figure by which the vessel 
is taken for its contents is so familiar that every 
one understands it, without any special notice 

■^ Ep. i. ad Heliodorum. t Ep. ci. ad Evangel. 

J Holy Bible, luith Notes, quoted in Tract No. 81. 



82 TR AN SUBSTANTIATION. 

being given. It does not warrant the supposi- 
tion that the whole sentence is figurative. The 
difierent terms used by the sacred writers in 
recording it, explain one another. The break- 
ing of bread for distribution was equivalent to 
the giving of it, and as our Lord gave His Body 
to the Apostles under the appearance of bread, 
and broke and gave the sacramental elements, 
both terms are used by the inspired writers, not 
figuratively but literally. As Archdeacon Wil- 
berforce justly observes: "It is difficult to un- 
derstand how the Holy Eucharist can depend 
upon the principle of representations, because 
why should bread and wine represent our Lord's 
Body and Blood, except there were some real 
connection between them ? The elements have 
no natural likeness to flesh and blood, nor, unless 
the sacramental principle be admitted, have they 
any special fitness to represent such objects."* 
Your great array of scriptural passages in which 
the verb substantive is equivalent to signify, or 
represent, was unnecessary, because all must 
admit that in parables, similitudes, allegories, 
or other like forms of speech, where resemblance 
or representation is avowedly treated of, the 
verb substantive has such force, being a con- 
venient and short way of expression, which in 
the circumstances implies no ambiguity. This, 
however, does not warrant us in giving it such 
a meaning, when a solemn covenant is in ques- 

* Wilberforce, on the Eucharist, ch. v. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 83 

tion. Our Lord was not then engaged in pro- 
posing a parable. He was instituting, as we 
believe, a sacrament and sacrifice. He was near 
the consummation of His earthly career. He 
addressed Plis confidential friends, His disciples, 
to whom He was wont to speak plainly. He 
was doing an act which was to continue to be 
performed in His name to the end of time. It 
was most important that its nature should be 
well understood. In these circumstances He 
was likely to speak plainly and distinctly. Fore- 
knowing that His words would be taken by the 
vast majority of His followers in their literal and 
obvious meaning. He surely would have taken 
care to prevent an error, which, according to 
you, has resulted in the most degrading idolatry. 
Four inspired writers have recorded His words, 
without any variation, as regards those used in 
consecrating the bread: "This is My Body." 
Being the only instance, as one of the Tract 
writers remarks, in which the words of our Lord 
are recorded exactly the same by four inspired 
writers, it implies that they are in a high degree 
mysterious. 

We do not set aside the testimony of the 
senses as to all natural objects, for which they 
were given us by our Creator, when we hold 
that God requires us to form our judgment of a 
revealed mystery on His testimony declared by 
His Church, without regard to the impressions 
made on them. Divine mysteries rest solely on 



84 TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 

His revelation. Miracles wrought in confirma- 
tion of revealed truth fall under the senses ; but 
the sacramental change is not a miracle in this 
sense. It is, indeed, a secret operation of Divine 
Power, directed to convey to men a heavenly 
gift, and to present to God the victim of Calvary. 
In regard to the apparitions to the patriarchs 
you observe: "Their senses were not misled. 
They saw what was presented to their eyes, 
correctly. They heard what was presented to 
their ears correctly. There was no error in the 
senses. But whether the being who addressed 
them was the Deity, or an angel, or a man, was 
not a question for the senses to determine.'''^ Was 
then a real body present ? If impressions were 
made on the senses, without a real object before 
them, such as the senses reported, then were 
the patriarchs deceived, until from some other 
source they learned their error. In the Eu- 
charist the species remain, and make correspond- 
ing impressions on the senses ; whether the 
substance be there, or no, is not a question for 
the senses to determine. They only report 
impressions, which ordinarily warrant the judg- 
ment that the natural substance is present. In 
case of a divine act by which the substance is 
changed without a change of the appearances, 
the senses are not at fault, but the observer is 
mistaken in his judgment, which should not be 
formed from the impressions, but should rest 

* Vol. ii. p. 177. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 85 

on the word of God. Your observation, then, 
is applicable to the Eucharist ; for if the patri- 
archs seeing, hearing, touching their guests, 
were deceived in regarding them as men, it is 
evident that in supernatural and mysterious 
works the senses must not be wholly and abso- 
lutely relied on. Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
thus addressed the faithful: "Contemplate 
therefore the bread and wine not as bare ele- 
ments, for they are, according to the Lord's de- 
claration, the Body and Blood of Christ ; for 
though sense suggest this to thee, let faith 
stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, 
but from faith be fully assured, without misgiv- 
ing, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body 
and Blood of Christ." "Be fully persuaded, 
that what seems bread is not bread, though 
bread by taste, but the Body of Christ ; and that 
what seems wine is not wine, though the taste 
will have it so, but the Blood of Christ."* 

You insist that Dr. Milner forces Hooker and 
other divines of the English Church to bear 
testimony to the real presence against their will. 
It is certain that most of your divines qualify 
their admissions of truth so as to destroy them, 
or contradict themselves. You know, however, 
that the Tractarians collected many passages, 
which they considered fragments of the Catholic 
doctrines which remained here and there in the 

* Oxford Transl. p. 272. 



86 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

writings of former divines of the Establisli- 
ment, especially in regard to the Eucharist. 
Bishop Andrews replied to Bellarmine: " Christ 
said : 'This is my Body ;' in this, the object, we 
are agreed with you, the manner only is contro- 
verted. We hold by a firm belief that it is the 
Body of Christ." " It is inquired," says Bishop 
Taylor, "whether when we say we believe 
Christ's Body to be really in the sacrament, we 
mean that Body, that Flesh that was horn of the 
Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead, and 
buried. I answer that I know none else that he 
had or hath ; there is but one Body of Christ, 
natural and glorified ; but he that says that Body 
is glorified which was crucified, says it is the 
same Body, but not after the same manner, and 
so it is in the sacrament, we eat and drink the 
Body and Blood of Christ, that was broken and 
poured forth ; for there is no other Body, no 
other Blood of Christ ; but though it is the same 
which we eat and drink, yet it is in another 
manner."* Dr. Pusey, you recollect, startled 
many by his bold assertion of the Real Presence, 
and Archdeacon Wilberforce, whilst still in the 
communion of the English Church, maintained 
Transubstantiation. Archdeacon Dennison is 
now arraigned for the same obnoxious tenet, or 
something approaching it. Yet I freely grant 
that most of your writers who have spoken in 
this way, have had little conception of our doc- 

*The Real Presence of Cluist, sec. i. ii. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 87 

trine, and have vacillated in its belief, if not 
manifestly involved themselves in contradiction. 
It is a mystery which few can grasp firmly, even 
in the apprehension of the mind, unless those 
whom God vouchsafes to draw within His 
Church. Others occasionally feel the force of 
the words of Christ, and profess their belief in a 
Keal Presence; but how it is they know not, 
and seldom care to inquire. The reason is that 
which S. Augustin assigned for the vague re- 
plies of a catechumen when questioned as to 
this mystery itself: "Jesus has not intrusted 
Himself to him."* 

* Tract, xi. in Joan. 



LETTER VII. 

®\x tilt Sacrifice 

Right Reverend Sir : 

TOU very unnecessarily brand Dr. Milner's 
definition of sacrifice as Deistical, because 
it includes no mention of Christ. From the 
statement of St. Paul, that Abel by faith offered 
to God a more acceptable sacrifice than that of 
Cain, you infer that his reference of the victim 
to a future Redeemer constituted the chief value 
of his offering. It is not quite clear to me that 
the term faith as there employed, imports this 
distinct recognition. But, at all events, this re- 
gards the disposition which rendered the sacri- 
fice more acceptable, and does not properly 
enter into the definition. Your attempt to ex- 
tend the term to acts of praise, prayer, compunc- 
tion, beneficence, is apparently justified by many 
scriptural texts, which, however, do not treat of 
sacrifice strictly so called. The prophecy of 
Malachi has indeed reference to true sacrifice, 
although the text means rather the offering of 
incense, an accompaniment of sacrifice, and an 
oblation of a minor class, such as flour and oil 



ON THE SACRIFICE. 89 

with incense. You confidently appeal to the 
fathers for its right interpretation, and I cheer- 
fully accept the proposition, being willing to 
abide by their testimony when they profess to 
give the literal and strict exposition of the 
passage. 

You begin with Tertullian. Allow me to go 
still farther back, to St. Justin, the Martyr, who 
in his dialogue with Tryphon, a Jew, thus de- 
scants on the text in question : " Malachi, even 
at that time speaking of the sacrifices of us 
gentiles, which are offered in every place, that 
is, the bread of the Eucharist, and in like manner 
the wine of the Eucharist, foretold that we 
indeed should glorify His name, which you pro- 
fane." He does not here unfold the mystery, 
but he fixes the literal sense of the prophecy, as 
regarding the Eucharistic oblation. St. Irenseus 
gives the like explanation. " Christ took in his 
hands the bread, which is created, and gave 
thanks saying : ' This is My Body.' And in 
like manner He avowed to be His Blood the 
chalice, which is of that created substance which 
is with us, and He taught a new offering of the 
^ew Covenant, which the Church receiving 
from the Apostles, ofifers to God throughout the 
whole world, to Him who gives us nourishment, 
the first fruits of His gifts in the 'New Testament, 
of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, 
thus foretold." He then recites the entire pas- 



90 ON THE SACRIFICE. 

sage, and adds: "By these words lie more mani- 
festly intimates that tlie ancient people indeed 
ceased to offer to God, and that in every place 
sacrifice is ofi*ered to God, and this a pure one, 
and His name is glorified among the nations."* 
This ancient father distinctly explains the pro- 
phecy of the Eucharistic sacrifice. 

With these two interpreters of highest anti- 
quity on my side, I can afibrd to give you the 
benefit of the exposition of Tertullian, who un- 
derstands contrition, praise, prayer, to be the 
sacrifices everywhere ofiered. Yet it would be 
unjust to him to suppose, that in presenting 
these views to Jews, or to a wild sectary, like 
Marcion, he necessarily excluded the obvious 
interpretation given by those fathers who pre- 
ceded him. He elsewhere says : " We sacrifice 
for the welfare of the Emperor, "f 

St. Augustin adheres to the literal exposition, 
and connects it with the celebrated passages of 
Genesis and the Psalms, regarding the priest- 
hood of Melchisedech : " Since they see that this 
sacrifice is ofiered everywhere from the rising 
to the setting of the sun, by priests according to 
the order of Melchisedech, they can no longer 
deny that the sacrifices of the Jews, of whom it 
is said: *I have no pleasure in you,' have 
ceased. "J This unequivocal language gives us 
the key to those passages in which he treats of 

* L. iv. de hser. c. xxxii. f L. ad Scapulam, c. ii. 

J L. xviii. de civ. Dei. c, xxxv. 



ON THE SACRIFICE. 91 

spiritual offerings, acts of self-denial, and of con- 
secration to God. The edifying address to the 
new communicants, which you have given to 
your readers, was intended to excite them to 
offer themselves in sacrifice, by the exercises of 
a holy life, and on that account he insists on their 
becoming what they had received, by offering 
themselves victims to the Divine glory. There 
is nothing in it which does not harmonize with 
the mystery. In the same spirit is to be under- 
stood his definition of sacrifice in his book on 
the City of God. When he says, elsewhere, that 
in "the oblation and participation of the Body 
and Blood of Christ, Christians celebrate the 
memorial of His finished sacrifice,"* he speaks 
of the sacrifice of the altar, which is at once the 
memorial and application of that complete atone- 
ment offered on the cross. Speaking of the 
Jews, he says : "The passover, which they still 
celebrate by the offering of a sheep, is different 
from ours, which we take in the Body and Blood 
of the Lord."t 

Mede, quoted by the Tractarians, remarks on 
the prophecy of Malachi: "This place of Scrip- 
ture, however now in a manner silenced and for- 
gotten, was once, and that in the oldest and purest 
time of the Church, a text of eminent note, and 
familiarly known to every Christian, being al- 

* T. viii. p. 245, F., cited by Hopkins, vol. ii. p. 220. 
t Contra lit. Petilian, 1, ii. N. 87. 



92 ON THE SACRIFICE. 

leged by their pastors and teachers, as an express 
and undoubted prophecy of the Christian sacri- 
fice, or solemn worship in the Eucharist, taught 
by our Blessed Saviour unto His disciples, to be 
observed of all that should believe in His name ; 
and this so generally and grantedly, as could 
never have been, at least so early, unless they 
had learned thus to apply it by tradition from 
the Apostles." Overall, with whose words they 
also furnish me, says in reference to this pre- 
diction, and that of the Psalmist concerning 
Melchisedech : "both which the ancient fathers, 
with one consent, understood of the sacrifice of 
the Eucharist, and the priests of the Gospel."* 
Hickes observes : " The ancients always spoke of 
the Eucharist as the sacrifice of oblation of the 
Gentiles, in opposition to those of the Jews, 
when they argued against them from the pro- 
phecy of Malachi."t 

Dr. Milner remarks, that "the Church of 
England has priests but no sacrifice, altars but 
no victim, an essential consecration of the sacra- 
mental elements, without even the least efiect 
upon the elements." This you attempt to dis- 
prove, by a learned disquisition on the classical 
and scriptural Greek terms, Upsug and -peaiSorspoq, 
but the shortest and most effectual way to de- 
stroy the alleged inconsistencies, is to avow that 
you have neither priest nor altar. Hence, 

* Tract N. 81. t Tracts, p. 258. 



ON THE SACRIFICE. 93 

Bishop White, of Philadelphia, was opposed to 
the use of these terms: "It has been acknow- 
ledged," he says, "that the here supposed error 
concerning * sacrifice,' * altar,' and Spriest,' arose 
at an early period of the history of the Christian 
Church."* Archbishop Whately is notorious 
for the same opposition.f 

When you call our doctrine "blasphemous 
presumption," you remind me of those of whom 
the Scripture speaks, "who blaspheme what- 
soever things they know not." The conse- 
quences which you allege, do not flow from our 
belief. The priests are but the agents and 
ministers of Christ, doing what He commanded, 
and with trembling awe ministering in His 
presence. 

It is easy to show that a true priesthood, 
with a real sacrifice, no other than the Body 
and Blood of Christ, was always recognized in 
the Christian Church, as it is still recognized by 
all the Oriental sects, as well as by Catholics. 
Archdeacon Wilberforce, in his learned work on 
the Eucharist, written before his submission to 
the Holy See, observes that "it may be asserted 
without fear of contradiction, that no doctrine 
of the Christian religion is affirmed with more 
unanimity by all ancient writers, than the truth 

* Dissertation viii. of the Eucharist, by William White, p. 402. 
t See the Priesthood in the Church, by William R. Whitting- 
ham, Bishop of Maryland, p. 5, 



94 ON THE SACRinCE. 

of the Eucharistic sacrifice. ' ' * This he proves by 
passages from St. Clement, St. Ignatius, Justin 
Martyr, St. Irenseus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, 
and by the ancient Liturgies. *'The judgment 
of the Church to the time of the Council of 
Chalcedon, may be expressed in the following 
assertions : " First, — The thing offered in the 
Holy Eucharist, is affirmed in express terms to be 
the Body of Christ." " Secondly, — The sacrifice 
offered in the Holy Eucharist is affirmed not to 
be anything superadded to that on the Cross, nor 
yet a repetition of it." " Thirdly, — The victim 
offered in the Holy Eucharist, was said to be 
identical with Him who offered it. " " Fourthly, — 
It was the habitual custom of ancient writers to 
speak of the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist as 
awful, august, and terrible." "Fifthly, — They 
speak of the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, as 
truly efficacious for the obtaining of all those 
things which are the subject-matter of prayer 
and of intercession." " Sixthly, — The sacrifice of 
the Holy Eucharist is declared to have been that 
which the Jewish ordinances were intended to 
typify." " Seventhly, — ^But the sacrifice of the 
Holy Eucharist is said to difier from those of the 
law, in that the latter were only a shadow, while 
the former is a reality. " " Eighthly, — To offer the 
sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, is declared to be 
an especial office, committed to the Apostles and 
their successors, "f I shall not trouble you, 

* The Holy Eucharist, ch. xi. p. 318, f Ibidem, 



ON THE SACRIFICE. 95 

Riglit Reverend Sir, with the detailed proofs of 
each assertion furnished by the illustrious author; 
but if you will condescend to read them, I have 
some hope that you will repent having branded 
our doctrine with the characters of presumption 
and blasphemy. 

The loss of the Christian priesthood is the 
greatest calamity which has befallen the Church 
of England. In separating from the communion 
of the chief Bishop, the proud prince who 
swayed her destinies, fancied that he would pre- 
serve the hierarchy with its worship ; but the 
penalty of revolt soon overtook the children of 
disobedience ; and when the bold Elizabeth un- 
dertook to reconstruct the Church, she found 
herself obliged to supply by royal edicts and 
acts of Parliament, deficiencies in those who 
were to be the fathers of the new prelacy. I am 
quite willing that you should treat as fabulous 
the story of the E"ag's head ordination, and that 
you should assume as proved the ordination of 
Barlow; but the total inattention to the sacrifi- 
cial character of the priesthood, and to the Divine 
powers of the episcopate, in the forms adopted 
under Edward, and followed in the ordination 
of Matthew Parker, and of all English bishops 
and presbyters for more than a hundred years, 
convinces me that all real priestly character has 
vanished from your communion. Indeed, it is 
scarcely claimed. Bishop Whittingham, in his 
two sermons on the Priesthood, although stick- 



96 ON THE SACRIFICE. 

ling for tlie term, studiously avoids attributing 
to it the distinctive office of presenting a real 
sacrifice. You manifestly discard the idea. 
" Yet what a mockery," cries Archdeacon Wil- 
berforce, " is a priestly commission which con- 
fers no powers, and a form of consecration 
whereby nothing is made holy?"* Thus you 
are destitute of all that antiquity judged essen- 
tial to the Christian ministry. Very properly 
you have laid aside the vestments which were 
employed in the act of sacrifice, and although 
some would fain place your communion table 
where the altar once stood, yet the instincts of 
Protestantism prevent any general innovation of 
this kind, which might give a coloring of reality 
to that which is by your own avowal but the 
shadow : magni nominis umbra. 

As you take occasion to rail at the practice 
of receiving a very small offering on occasion 
of celebrating Mass, I must remind you that it 
is a remnant of the ancient usage of making ob- 
lations of wine, flour, and other provisions at 
the time of the sacrifice. It is presented as a 
contribution towards the support of the priest,t 

* Ibidem, p. 75. 

f It was not thought unworthy of recording among the acts of 
piety that marked the childhood of St. Peter Damiani, that he 
made an offering of a small coin which came into his possession, 
to have Mass celebrated according to his intention. The act is 
an alms on the part of the donor, with the additional merit of 
being consecrated to the maintenance of Divine worship. It is 
not given as a price, or consideration. 



ON THE SACRIFICE. 97 

on the principle of God's own ordinance, tliat 
" they who serve the altar should partake mth 
the altar." You make a gross misstatement 
when you assert of our clergy : " They never 
perform those masses without the payment in 
money of a stipulated sum." Thousands of 
Masses are celebrated without any offering what- 
ever being made. All bargaining is strictly for- 
bidden. The Church, in allowing us to receive 
the free contributions of the faithfal, for our ne- 
cessary support, has cautiously guarded against 
abuses by strict enactments, charging her minis- 
ters, as they have gratuitously received, to give 
also gratuitously. 



LETTER YIIL 

(B\\ €mmm\m mhx ®m %xnt 

Right Reverend Sir: 

WinLST you deny the real Presence of tlie 
Body and Blood of our Lord in the 
Eucharist, and the true sacrifice of our altars, I 
cannot hope to convince you of the reasonahle- 
ness of our discipline in administering it under 
one kind. This custom was introduced, indeed, 
by force of circumstances, not by any positive 
enactment; but it has been maintained espe- 
cially with a view to oppose the grievous error 
which regards the sacrament as mere bread and 
wine. The Church believing the Body and 
Blood of Christ to be truly present, and insepa- 
rably united, holds that both are received, even 
when one kind only is taken. Although the 
custom of communicating under both kinds still 
continues among the Greeks, they believe with us 
that the Body and Blood of Christ are contained 
under each form, and even under each separate 
particle. In the Council of Jerusalem, A. D., 
1672, they declared : ^' We believe that in every 
portion, even to the minutest subdivision, of the 



ON COMMUNION UNDER ONI} KIND. 99 

bread and wine after they have been changed, 
are contained not any separate part of the Body 
and Blood of the Lord, but the Body of Christ 
is always whole and one in all its parts ; and the 
Lord Jesus is present in His substance, that is, 
with His Soul and Divinity, as perfect God and 
perfect man."* Why we should adhere to this 
usage of communion under one kind in appa- 
rent opposition to the original institution, per- 
plexes the superficial observer ; but Providence 
has so directed that in this respect, as well as in 
regard to baptism, we may not appeal to the 
mere letter of Scripture against the teaching 
and practice of those to whom Christ committed 
the dispensation of the sacraments. Were each 
one to judge of the mode of baptizing by the 
scriptural statement of the baptism which our 
Lord received, or of the manner of giving the 
Eucharist by the transactions of the supper- 
room, we should change the place and mode of 
baptism, and the time and all the circumstances 
of the Eucharistic celebration. To be consistent, 
you should in all matters which regard the ad- 
ministration of both sacraments defer to the 
authority of the Church. 

Our Lord in the Eucharist has given us a 
sacrifice, as well as sacrament, and as the former 
implies the immolation of a victim, the separate 

* Quoted by Wilberforce on the Eucharist, ch. iii. § iii. This 
is translated from the Russ version. Neal's In trod. p. 1155. The 
Greek is in Harduin, xi. p. 254. 



100 ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 

consecration of tlie bread and wine is directed to 
present tlie Body and Blood separately, as they 
were offered on the cross, the Body being 
stretched upon it, while the Blood streamed 
from the veins. In this consists the mystical 
sacrifice of our altars; for which reason the 
reception of both kinds is regarded as apper- 
taining to its consummation, and is enjoined on 
the celebrant. The communicants are made 
partakers of both the Body and the Blood under 
either kind, because the Blood is not now actu- 
ally separated from the Body, and therefore they 
enjoy the full benefit of the sacrament. They 
are under no necessity of receiving both, because 
it does not devolve on them to consummate the 
sacrifice. For many ages it was generally 
allowed to receive both ; but liberty was given 
to receive either alone, when a just cause ex- 
isted, as in times of persecution, and in sickness. 
The occurrence of serious accidents, whilst the 
sacred cup was handed from lip to lip, was one 
of the chief occasions of introducing the custom 
of receiving under the species of bread only. 
'No divine command can be shown to receive 
both, since the words, "Drink ye all of this," 
were addressed to the Apostles, and by them 
fulfilled at the moment : " and they all drank of 
it." There is an obvious reason, why they 
should receive both on that solemn occasion, 
when they were associated to the priesthood of 



ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 101 

Christ, to be ever afterwards His agents in the 
act of sacrifice. 

You admit that the English Parliament, as 
well as Calvin, allow the partaking of the bread 
without the wine, in cases of necessity ; but you 
deny that this implies anything favorable to our 
discipline. Yet is it not evidence that the 
Church of England does not regard both ele- 
ments as absolutely essential ? 

The manner of administering the sacraments 
appertains to discipline, and is consequently 
subject to the discretionary power of the Church, 
which regulates it according to circumstances, 
in various places, or at various periods. The 
Eucharist was given under both elements, for 
nearly twelve centuries, which is still the prac- 
tice of the Eastern churches. Throughout the 
West, it is given only under the species of 
bread, which usage was gradually introduced 
from a variety of causes, some of which have 
been specified above, and for about six hundred 
years it has been fully established. 

St. Leo complained of the Manicheans, who 
abstained from the sacred cup, regarding wine 
as a production of the evil principle. They also 
disbelieved the reality of the sufierings of Christ, 
and were therefore opposed to the receiving of 
the Blood, which the faithful believed to be 
given in the mystery. In order to discover and 
separate them from the faithful. Pope Gelasius 
ordered that all should receive under both kinds. 

9^ 



102 ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 

You remark, tliat tlie established rule was to 
give both the species to the laity. Of this there 
i& no dispute ; but it was left free to receive 
under both, until the errors of these secret here- 
tics rendered it advisable to enforce their recep- 
tion. "When that cause ceased to exist, it was 
again left optional, and the custom of receiving 
only in one kind at length prevailed. Arch- 
deacon Wilberforce observes, that " both kinds 
were held to communicate one gift, which was 
supposed to be imparted perfectly through every 
portion of either element." In proof, he quotes 
St. Cyril, of Alexandria : " For as St. Paul says, 
'A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,' so 
the very smallest portion of the Eucharist trans- 
fuses our whole body into itself, and fills us with 
its own energy, and thus Christ comes to exist 
in us, and we in him. ' ' * He also states the custom 
of bishops sending the Eucharist one to another, 
and of deacons carrying it to the sick, of hermits 
keeping it in their cells, and of the faithful 
generally having it in times of persecution, in 
all which circumstances one kind only was gene- 
rally received. t " The mention of bread only, 
when the holy Eucharist was received in private 
houses, leads to the conclusion that it was par- 
taken in that kind alone. The story of Serapion, 
as related by Eusebius, shows that this was sup- 

* In Joan, vi, 57, vol. iv. p. 365. 

t Wilberforce on the Eucharist, ch. iii. s. 111. 



ON COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 103 

posed sufficient in the case of the sick, and from 
a circumstance recorded by St. Cyprian, we learn 
that infants were communicated under the other 
kind only."* 

Your proof, from the Council of Chalcedon, 
is superfluous, as regards the acknowledged 
usage. Your commentary is remarkable. The 
text says, " That those to whom they gave the 
sacred Body, made signs and went out, because 
the Blood was wanting ;" you add : " This clearly 
shows that the people not only received the 
wine, but expected to be supplied well and libe- 

rally."t 

The practice reproved by the Council of 
Braga (Bracara), is still found among the Greeks, 
who, on some occasions, dip the host in the 
chalice, and give it thence to the communicant. 
The Council of Clermont, in the canon given by 
you, plainly held the mystery as we hold it, to 
be the Body and Blood of Christ, and allowed 
communion under one kind in cases of neces- 
sity, or when caution recommended it. The 
Bishop of Salisbury, in his constitution, which 
you recite, alludes to the general usage, and 
bears testimony to the truth of Christ's Body 
and Blood. The precautions against accidents 
and the painful prescriptions to remedy them, 
show that the faith of those times was identical 
with our own. 

* Wilberforce on the Eucharist, p. 72. t ^o\. ii. p. 187. 



LETTER IX. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

OF the established Church of England and the 
Catholic Church you say : " Both churches 
agree in the necessity of the repentance of sin, 
confession of sin, and absolution from sin, without 
which (the case of infants alone excepted) there 
can be no salvation." I did not before imagine 
that we harmonized so far : but why any mention 
should be made of infants, where actual sin is in 
question, I am at a loss to understand. 

You deny our right to change the scriptural 
term " repentance" into "penance." The ^ew 
Testament was written in Greek ; neither term 
occurs in the original text. You think that the 
Greek should be rendered "repentance." By 
closer observation, you will find that " penance" 
is the English modification of the Latin poeniten- 
tia, and that "agere poenitentiam" is an elegant 
as well as correct translation of /j^e-avosiu. But it 
is useless to detain our readers with a verbal criti- 
cism, since usage determines the force of words. 
When the ancient Latin translation was made, 



ON PENANCE. 105 

there could be no motive for misrepresenting the 
text, as the present controversies had no exist- 
ence. The Ehemish translators scrupulously ad- 
hered to the Latin. 

You are mistaken in stating that all the cir- 
cumstances of sin must be confessed. N'o cir- 
cumstance need be stated that does not aggravate 
the guilt of the sinner; nay, divines more 
generally hold, that such circumstances only as 
change the character of the sin need be specified. 
We take great care to guard penitents against 
entering into any unnecessary details, particu- 
larly such as might point to individuals, and pre- 
judice character. In stating that " all are forced 
to come before a private tribunal of compulsory 
judgment," you may lead some to suppose that 
other means are employed besides an appeal to 
conscience, under a threat of forfeiting the com- 
munion of the Church, which penalty is rarely 
inflicted. In designating it private, you may be 
thought to insinuate that the place of receiving 
confessions is such, especially as your book 
abounds with the basest insinuations ; but the 
Ritual directs that confessionals be erected in 
the public church. The circumstances of a mis- 
sionary country led in the beginning to the prac- 
tice of hearing confessions in rooms, in which 
the sacrifice itself was also oficred, or which im- 
mediately adjoined the church; but measures 
have been adopted by the councils to enforce 
conformity to the general discipline. You insist 



106 ON PENANCE. 

that " Eome demands secrecy, not only from the 
priest, but also from the penitent ; so that if the 
priest should err, the people have no remedy." 
In this you are mistaken. Secrecy is recom- 
mended, that the priest may not suffer for advice 
conscientiously given for the guidance of his 
penitent ; but if he impose unreasonable bur- 
dens, or in any way misdirect, or aggrieve, full 
liberty is enjoyed to have recourse to any other 
confessor ; and even independently of any griev- 
ance, the change of confessors is unrestricted. 
In case of any attempt to abuse the ministry, 
even in the most indirect way, the penitent is 
bound to denounce him to his ecclesiastical su- 
perior. 

You are mistaken in supposing that the Coun- 
cil of Trent declared that attrition is sufficient 
to insure pardon in the sacrament of penance. 
The term designedly employed is " disponit," 
which means only that it is a disposition for 
pardon, without determining its sufficiency. 
You must, however, have a very erroneous idea 
of the meaning which we attach to the word 
" attrition." It implies a hatred and detestation 
of sin, on account of its baseness, and of the 
punishments which God justly inflicts on the sin- 
ner. It is not a mere slavish fear of punishment, 
with a continued affection to sin, since such a 
disposition could not serve for our justification. 
Contrition springing from the love of God is 
strongly recommended in the Ritual ; which the 



ON PENANCE 107 

confessor accordingly endeavors to excite ; but 
whenever he is assured that the penitent is truly 
sorry for having sinned, and determined to shun 
it for the time to come, he may feel encouraged 
to absolve him, as having the necessary disposi- 
tion, Chillingworth, whose fame you are said 
to rival, says : " Though He (God), like best the 
bright flaming holocaust of love, yet He rejects 
not. He quenches not the smoking flax of that 
repentance, if it be true and efiectual, which 
proceeds from hope and fear."* 

Of the casting oneself down at the feet of the 
confessor, the Ritual says nothing. The expres- 
sion is used in some prayer-books to mark the 
humility with which the penitent should kneel 
in the confessional, which Tertullian declared in 
similar terms: " advolvi presbyteris." It is 
never done literally. 

You carp at our form of absolution, because it 
is absolute, not deprecatory, as in some ancient 
rituals; but you should reflect that the same 
form is still retained in the English Book of 
Common Prayer, which, however, the Ameri- 
can Episcopal Convention has abandoned. This 
is one of the striking points of difference be- 
tween you and the Church of England. She 
prescribes absolution to be given before com- 
munion, to individuals whose consciences prompt 
them to seek its benefit, and she directs the 

* "The Religion of Protestants a sure Way to Salvation," oh. i. 



108 ON PENANCE. 

minister to exhort tlie dying to confess what- 
ever burdens Ms conscience, and to absolve bim. 
To deny the power of forgiveness is, as Bisbop 
Pearson avows, the beresy of !N"ovatian.* Yet 
you only retain in tbe inorning service a form 
of supplication, or general declaration tbat tbose 
wbo repent will be forgiven, not venturing to 
exercise real power and authority to forgive sins 
in tbe name of Christ, although in the form of 
ordination it is implied. Such of your ministers 
as think that they ought to exercise it, expose 
themselves to be called to answer before their 
Bishop and the Standing Committee, on suspi- 
cion of Popery, as I believe took place a few 
years ago in Boston. 

All you say about "forcing all to come up, 
whether willing or unwilling, and bare their 
inmost thoughts to our inspection," is imaginary. 
"No one confesses except of his own free will, 
and as far as he pleases. He is bound to con- 
fess his sins, but not mere temptations, to which 
he has given no consent, or occasion ; much less 
such thoughts, views, or intentions, as involve 
no moral guilt. 

When St. Paul charged Timothy to rebuke 
them that sin before all, he spoke of public and 
scandalous delinquents, not of the frail penitent 
who seeks a remedy for secret faults. In the 
same spirit, the Council of Trent directs that 
open delinquents should be publicly reproved ; 

* Exposition of the Creed, art. ix. 



ON PENANCE. 109 

but the humble and contrite need milder treat- 
ment. You rail against the Council of Lateran 
as ha\'ing dispensed virtually with the apostolic 
rule of public discipline; yet its enactment en- 
forcing the duty of confession implied no such 
dispensation. It was directed to awaken sinners 
to repentance, and effect their reformation, 
which needs their own free return to duty. 

The testimonies of the fathers are disposed of 
by you very readily. Tertullian advises the 
sinner who shrinks from confession, to " think of 
hell, whose fires confession extinguishes."* You 
ask me ; " How does this show whether the con- 
fession was to God, or to the priest ; in public, 
or in private; voluntary, or enforced ?"t He 
certainly does not mean secret confession to 
God, since he represents sinners as delaying it 
through false shame and unwillingness to expose 
their frailty. He might be supposed to urge 
public confession, as he details many peniten- 
tial exercises ; but that private confession is 
specially meant, appears from the penitents 
casting themselves at the feet of the priests, 
doubtless to obtain reconciliation through their 
ministry. You, however, have neither private 
nor public confession, and you deny the neces- 
sity of either. 

Tertullian, you observe, speaks of penitence as 
only allowed once, which you rightly understand 
of public penance ; but you cannot mean to ex- 

•^ L. de pcEnit. c. ix. t ^^^' ii- P- 250. 

10 



110 ON PENANCE. 

elude the penitent from divine mercy, whenever 
he returns to God with all his heart, and in deep 
affliction of soul. As puhlic penance was en- 
joined chiefly for notorious and heinous crimes, 
and as it was accompanied with much solem- 
nity, it was proper that it should not be trifled 
with by repetition. Secret sins had always a 
remedy in private confession, which also em- 
braced sins that were public ; but as the disci- 
pline then established required public penance 
for these, it was wisely prescribed that in case 
of relapse, the delinquent should not again enter 
on the penitential course, but be left to mourn 
and repair his fall privately. 

The acts of penance are noted by Tertullian 
in his very graphic description. The penitent, 
he says, " falls down before the priests, and 
embraces the knees of those w^ho are the beloved 
of Grod," (according to another reading, kneels 
at the altars of God), "enjoining on all the 
brethren the commission to intercede in his 
behalf." The first clause is naturally referred 
to sacramental confession ; the second, if we 
retain your reading, "charis Dei," may have 
the same meaning ; the last manifestly implies 
entreaties addressed to the faithful by penitents, 
asking their intercession with the Church for 
their speedy restoration to communion, or with 
God for their pardon. Your inference that 
" there was no secrecy, no private tribunal of 
the priest alone," is not justified by the text. 



ON PENANCE. Ill 

Origen advises the penitent to look round 
diligently, and select a confessor, as he would a 
physician.* You infer thence, that he regarded 
confession as a mere matter of expediency. This 
consequence does not follow ; since it is neces- 
sary in serious illness to have a physician, 
although a choice is not denied us. You con- 
trast the liberty which Origen allows with the 
law of Lateran, which obliges each one to con- 
fess to his own parish priest. The law, however, 
is not quite so stringent, since there is an 
alternative, " or to another priest by his leave." 
Besides, custom has so mitigated it, that it is 
sufficient to confess to any approved priest. St. 
Francis De Sales gives the same advice as Origen, 
urging those who aspire to perfection, to pray 
for a safe guide, and choose a confessor of known 
piety and pruden ce. Eusebius, who belongs rather 
to the fourth century than to the third, com- 
mends " confession not to men, but to God, who 
searches the heart ;"t ^^^ t^is does not exclude 
sacramental confession, which has always been 
regarded as made to God, not to man, who is 
merely His minister. It is certain that public 
confession was extolled and practised, and that 
it also was considered as made to God, because 
it proceeded from motives of religion. 

St. Athanasius, whom you quote, says that 
" not to judge our neighbor gives pardon for all 

* Horn. ii. in Ps. xxxvii, t Comm. in Ps. p. 608. 



112 ON PENANCE. 

sins;"* but this means only that it disposes us 
to obtain their pardon, our Lord having said, 
" Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Such 
language does not preclude the necessity of 
employing the means which God has appointed 
for securing forgiveness. In like manner, when 
he assigns to the sinner as a test for ascertaining 
whether he has recovered the grace of God, the 
familiarity in prayer, by which his soul com- 
munes with the Creator,f he is only pointing 
to a token that may afford reasonable confidence 
to the penitent. He is not treating of the mode 
of reconciliation. 

St. Basil, you observe, prescribes to his monks 
confession as an exercise of religious discipline. 
The terms are general and applicable to all, 
although the duty is specially inculcated to the 
monks in the Rule : "it is necessary to confess 
our sins to those who are intrusted with the dis- 
pensation of the mysteries of God. "J He uses 
the comparison, which Tertullian and Origen 
had already employed, of the physician, to 
whom we should disclose our most secret ma- 
ladies and infirmities. In addressing the people 
at large, he says : " Have you committed a great 
and grievous sin ? You have need of much con- 
fession and bitter tears. "§ 

* Op. t. ii. p. 366, qu. 76. t lb. qu. 77. 

J In Reg. brev. resp. ad qu. 288, 

§ Horn, in haec verba : " Attende tibi ipsi." 



ON PENANCE. 113 

St. Ambrose is praised for his sympathy with 
his penitents, since he wept over their trans- 
gressions, and disclosed thein to no one but to 
God. This, you observe, would be unnoticed, 
if he were bound to entire secrecy, which we 
hold to be a necessary duty of the confessor. 
There is some justice in this remark ; but may 
not his biographer, St. Paulinus, refer to his 
extreme caution never to speak, even in general 
terms, of what came to his knowledge through 
the confessional ? The strictest divines admit 
that it involves no breach of the sacramental 
seal to speak in this way, when there is no 
danger whatever of suspicion lighting on the 
penitent ; yet it is seldom that such a practice 
is free from all objections, so that a confessor is 
worthy of praise, who never in any way alludes 
to any class of sins which have thus come to his 
knowledge. 

St. Augustin, you say, speaks of public pe- 
nance, when he forbids the sinner to flatter him- 
self that he can obtain Divine mercy by private 
penance. Yet his words are such as might be 
addressed to you, or any other Protestant who 
relies on the sufficiency of confession to God 
alone. '.' iiet no one say to himself : I do pe- 
nance secretly ; I do it before God ; God, who is 
to pardon me, knows the sentiments of my 
heart." To this specious reasoning against the 
necessity of applying for pardon to the ministers 

10* 



114 ON PENANCE. 

of religion, St. Augustin replies : " Then it has 
been said to no purpose, ' What ye shall loose 
on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' Then 
the keys have been given to the Church of God 
in vain ! We make void the Gospel ; we make 
void the words of Christ."* He distinctly states 
the duty of private confession in the third pas- 
sage, which you yourself quote. Speaking of 
one who is conscious of deadly sins against the 
Decalogue, he says : " Being bound, therefore, 
by the chains of those deadly sins, .... let him 
come to the prelates, by whom the keys of the 
Church are applied, and let him accept the 
mode of his satisfaction, and as it were already 
beginning to act as a devoted child, keeping 
the order that should exist between the mem- 
bers of the same mother, let him learn from 
those who preside over the administration of 
the sacraments, the manner in which he must 
satisfy, so that, being devout and suppliant in 
offering the sacrifice of a sorrowful heart, he 
may do what not only shall be profitable to his 
own salvation, but shall also serve as an ex- 
ample for others. So that, if his sin be not 
merely to his own grievous injury, but is like- 
wise a cause of great scandal to others, and if 
it shall seem expedient for the good of the 
Church, in the judgment of the Bishop, let him 
not refuse to do penance in the presence of 

* Serm. cccxcii. 



ON PENANCE. 115 

many, or even of all the people ; let him not 
resist, nor through shame, add inflammation to 
the mortal and deadly wound."* The private 
disclosure of sin to the prelate, was necessary to 
determine whether its public acknowledgment 
was necessary or proper. 

The principle of conduct which Augustin 
lays down in the other passage which you cite, 
harmonizes perfectly with our rules: "We can- 
not prohibit any one from the communion (al- 
though this prohibition is not yet mortal, but 
medicinal), unless he be accused and convicted, 
either by his own voluntary confession, or by 
some secular or ecclesiastical judgment. "f Con- 
fession is left entirely to the conscience of the 
individual. All who present themselves for 
communion are deemed worthy, unless some 
flagrant crime show the contrary. 

The daily medicine of prayer is available for 
venial sins, as Augustin teaches. We ask for- 
giveness before communion, that we may be 
purified from every slight stain, and rendered 
worthy of the Divine Gift. Confession of slight 
sins is not required by the divine law, although 
it is constantly practised. { 

The practice of confession in the second cen- 
tury is attested by St. Irenseus, who speaks of 
women deluded by a sectary of the name of 

* Serm, cccli. alias L. c. 4. f Ibidem. 

J Tom. V. Op. p. 68. Sermo de decern chordis. A. 



116 ON PENANCE. 

Mark, who, on their return to the faith, con- 
fessed that they had been seduced and corrupted 
by him.* It is also attested by the ancient 
fathers generally; and it is invincibly esta- 
blished by the fact that the practice has come 
down in the Church ; since it never could have 
been introduced after the days of the Apostles, 
for nothing less than a divine command pro- 
mulgated by them, could have established an 
observance so difficult. 

Fleury, your guide, states indeed that the first 
instance he has met with of confession being en- 
joined, is in the constitutions of St. Chrodegang, 
Bishop of Metz, in the year 763, who required 
his priests, to confess to him twice a year, at 
stated periods, under penalty of flagellation, if 
they failed, or if they withheld any grievous 
fault. The terms and the penalty show that this 
was a monastic regulation, for in that age, when 
the manners of men were not as yet free from 
traces of their barbarous ancestors, the fierce 
IsTorthmen, the whip was sometimes a necessary 
aid in preserving discipline. At other times of 
the year confession might be made by the mem- 
bers of that institute to a priest delegated by the 
Superior. The regulations which St. Chrode- 
gang made were presented by him as a mitiga- 
tion of the stricter rule of ancient monasteries, 
which required their inmates to disclose all their 
inmost thoughts. 

* L. i. ad. heer. ix. 



ON PENANCE. 117 

The first general law requiring confession was 
passed in the fourth Council of Lateran, whose 
enactments you bring under notice very fre- 
quently. But the divine law was always recog- 
nized, which obliges all sinners to confess their 
sins, that the power of loosing and binding may 
be discreetly and effectually exercised in their 
behalf. As in the apostolic age, the faithful 
came confessing their deeds and parting with 
the superstitious books which in their previous 
ignorance they had used, so in every succeeding 
age, they continued to practise confession, al- 
though no ecclesiastical enactment enforced that 
duty. In the thirteenth century it was found 
necessary to urge it under the severest penalty 
that the Church can inflict ; but as the duty 
was acknowledged by all, nothing was said to 
prove it. 

"Dr. Milner," you say, "has the effrontery to 
tell his readers that all this is in accordance with 
the fathers." Heave the readers to say who has 
effrontery. 

A certain penitential canon prescribed that 
one who could not fast on bread and water should 
sing fifty psalms on his knees in the church for 
one day of fasting, and feed one poor man for 
that day. The Council of Worms, in 1022, 
commuted the obligation of singing psalms for 
a hundred genuflexions, and allowed money to 
be given instead of actually feeding the poor 
man. You have put this in capitals, translating 



118 ON PENANCE. 

^^ 86 racheter par argent'' by redeem themselves 
FOR money, which is rather an equivocal expres- 
sion. I take leave to add the remarks of Fleury, 
which you have omitted : " It is proper to observe 
that this exemption from penance was only for 
such as could not possibly perform it as pre- 
scribed, and that this impossibility was not 
deemed a reason for an absolute dispensation, 
but merely for a commutation, so that the sinner 
might punish himself as far as in his power."* 
The money was not given to redeem themselves, 
but to be employed in the feeding of the poor, 
and thus to secure exemption from the literal 
compliance with the canon. I hope this does 
not strike you as simoniacal. The penitential 
discipline of that age, either in its strict form or 
as modified by dispensation, will scarcely gain 
your approval. 

You reject, apparently on the authority of 
Fleury, the principle that one may satisfy for 
another ; but perhaps you misunderstand your 
author, as well as the application of the principle. 
The Church certainly may remit something of 
her penitential discipline, in regard to the atone- 
ment or satisfaction offered by one of her chil- 
dren for a frail brother, when he seeks reconci- 
liation with a contrite heart. On that principle, 
those who had suffered persecution in the age of 
St. Cyprian, pleaded effectually in behalf of 

• Vol. xii. 1. Iviii. an. 1022. 



ON PENANCE. 119 

apostates, who returned penitent to tlie Church. 
God sent the friends of Job to seek his prayers, 
promising to accept them in their behalf. Christ 
had regard to the faith of those who brought the 
palsied man to him. St. Paul supplied in his 
flesh for the body of the faithful what was want- 
ing to secure to them the application of the suf- 
ferings of Christ. This vicarious expiation is, 
of course, unavailing to the sinner who remains 
obstinately attached to crime ; but it is profitable 
to the penitent, through the merits of our Re- 
deemer. 

Your diligence in tracing the decline of peni- 
tential discipline, and your apparent zeal for the 
system of public penance, might lead some to 
suppose that it was still preserved in your com- 
munion ; whilst the truth is, that public and pri- 
vate penance is equally discarded ; fasting and all 
commutation for it are ignored ; penance is re- 
jected as an unscriptural term ; and the sinner is 
flattered with the belief that he can obtain par- 
don by his secret repentance, without recourse 
to any ecclesiastical authority, the testimony 
and practice of all antiquity to the contrary not- 
withstanding. 

Your statistics in regard to the confessional 
are amusingly erroneous. We hear confessions 
not during one week only in the year, but every 
day, and often for hours together. The time 
occupied with each penitent is generally very 
short, for confession is not a circumstantial detail 



120 ON PENANCE. 

of events. The sinner, in a few brief words, 
recounts his prevarications, avoiding all unne- 
cessary specifications, and the priest, after brief 
admonitions and injunctions, when satisfied of 
his true sorrow, pronounces him absolved. This 
may appear to you to aflbrd no evidence of the 
disposition of the sinner; but an experienced 
physician soon discovers the disease and applies 
the remedy. You suppose that we give more 
time to convert^, to enable them to appreciate 
the consolations of the confessional. They are 
treated like all others, according to the state of 
their consciences. Every penitent, by his own 
statements, determines the amount of time to 
be employed, the inquiries to be made, the 
advice to be given, the obligations to be im- 
posed. It is impossible for you, sir, to appre- 
ciate this ministry; but thousands who daily 
experience its advantages, can attest that by 
it they have been reclaimed from vice, and 
strengthened and directed in the path of virtue. 
It affords relief to the despondent sinner; it 
encourages the timid, it guides the unwary. It 
wipes away tears of bitterness, that might end 
in despair ; it dissolves enmities ; it heals rank- 
ling wounds; it covers shame, that exposed 
might lead to self-destruction ; it saves from un- 
perceived precipices ; it breaks chains forged by 
long habits of vice ; it snatches from the plun- 
derer his prey, and gives it back to the despoiled 
owner; it disarms the conspirator, and throws a 



ON PENANCE. 121 

shield around the unprotected; it raises the 
sinner from death to life. Those who know 
human weakness, and all the mental anguish 
that in some form or other, distresses almost 
every individual of the human family, may con- 
ceive something of the advantages of an insti- 
tution which inspires entire confidence, and 
secures advice and consolation in the most 
afflicting circumstances. The confessor does not 
mock the sorrow of his penitent, or reproach him 
with his misfortunes. He bids him hope, when 
all around have abandoned hini, and as soon as 
he discovers that his compunction is deep and 
effectual, he says to him, in the spirit of Him 
who does not break the bruised reed, "Son, be 
of good heart : thy sins are forgiven thee." 
It may be impossible to restore the unhappy 
offender to his place in society, even to the 
affection of a fond parent, whose feelings have 
been outraged ; or to rescue him from the arm 
of the law, which is outstretched to inflict its 
severest penalty ; but in the name of Him who 
came into this world to save sinners, the priest 
of God assures him of pardon and salvation. 



11 



LETTER X. 

©It furpteji. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

ALTHOUGH Dr. Milner distinctly stated that 
Catholic faith does not determine the nature 
of the punishment endured in Purgatory, still you 
maintain it to he fire, and accuse him of equivo- 
cating, because he said that we are not hound to 
believe it to be material fire. He was above all 
such quibbles. You ascribe to us interested 
motives for the maintenance of this doctrine: 
" Masses for the dead are of far more pecuniary 
value than Masses for the living." ^Not so ; the 
same small offering is allowed for both, and is 
often given to the first beggar that solicits our 
charity. 

You meet the first proof from the second book 
of the Macchabees, by denying the canonical 
authority of the book. It is enough for me to 
remind you that Beveridge acknowledges that 
these books were spoken of by St. Cyprian, and 
before him by Origen, precisely in the same 
manner as the books now received by all: 
"Since Cyprian cites those books among the 



ON PURGATORY. 123 

canonical in the same breath, in the same series, 
without any distinction whatever, it is manifest 
that the Catholic Church of that age was wont to 
count them among the canonical hooks, especially 
since Origen also adds ra Maxxajiaixd to the hooks 
delivered by the Jewish Church to the Chris- 
tian."* Further, you object that it proves too 
much, since those slain " were cut off for the crime 
of idolatry, and died in mortal sin." It does not 
appear that they worshipped the idols, but that 
they seized on donaries of the idols, contrary to 
the law, by which transgression they drew down 
vengeance on themselves. It was of itself a 
grievous sin ; but Judas may have hoped that 
some acted in ignorance, or repented in death, 
and found mercy. You conjecture that the 
sacrifices were offered for the living, to reconcile 
God to them. The text says directly the con- 
trary, and adds that Judas thought " well and 
religiously of the resurrection;" and infers "it 
is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to 
pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from 
their sins." The Greek says that he made 
an expiation for those who had died T.spl rco> 

I will not discuss with you the obscure pas- 
sage of St. Paul, respecting those who were 
baptized for the dead. If you can explain it 
satisfactorily in a different way from Dr. Milner, 

* Codex Can. Prim. Eccl. I. 2, c. ix. f 2 Mac. xii. 



124 ON PURGATORY. 

you will have accomplished what learned inter- 
preters have often tried unsuccessfully. 

You admit an intermediate state, without 
caring to define its character, and you allow Dr. 
Milner's application to it of two scriptural testi- 
monies, Luke xvi. 22, 1 Peter iii. 9. His in- 
terpretation of the prison, from which there is 
no liberation until the last farthing is paid 
(Luke xii. 59), does not please you, because souls 
in Purgatory can do nothing to satisfy Divine 
justice ; but their endurance is accepted, and the 
prayers of the Church may avail them, so that 
their debt maybe discharged. 

The inference drawn from Matt. xii. 32, that 
some sins may be forgiven hereafter, whilst the 
sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be for- 
given, appears to you to force heretical doctrine 
on the Saviour Himself ; inasmuch as no sin is 
forgiven in Purgatory, but punishment is en- 
dured for sins already forgiven. By reading our 
divines more attentively, you will perceive that 
we hold that venial sins are forgiven in that state, 
so that there is no foundation for your charge. 

The various scriptural facts brought forward 
by Dr. Milner, namely, the punishment of death 
inflicted on our first parents, though penitent, 
the punishment of the Israelites, and of David 
after his sin was forgiven, were intended to 
prove that God often visits with temporal chastise- 
ments, sinners whose guilt He has pardoned; 
which point they fully establish. The fathers 



ON PURGATORY. 125 

wliom you quote, Irenseus, Tertullian, and Am- 
brose, seem to affirm that all souls, even those 
of the Saints, pass to the region in which the 
departed spirits were before the coming of our 
Saviour, and remain there to the Day of Judg- 
ment. Other passages, however, occur in their 
writings, especially in those of St. Ambrose, 
which are more in harmony with general tradi- 
tion, and the Divine Scriptures, and with that 
doctrine which the Church has sealed with her 
solemn definition. Whatever may have been 
their individual sentiments, nothing said by them 
clashes with the doctrine of a middle state, in 
which souls are detained for slighter sins. 

The observations of the Benedictine editors of 
St. Ambrose, to which you refer, are restricted 
by themselves to matters not then defined by 
the Church. They regard certain expressions 
and views, which some fathers put forward con- 
cerning the state of just souls before the final 
judgment, but which in other passages of their 
writings they modified or corrected, by adhering 
more closely to the general teaching of their 
predecessors. This does not imply any uncer- 
tainty as to the intermediate state, which we 
style Purgatory, since their language on this 
subject is sufficiently definite, and the usage of 
praying for the dead, which even Calvin admits 
to be very ancient,* is an evidence of the tradi- 
tion that there is a state of departed souls, to 

■^ In Acta Ap. c. xv. 10. 
11* 



126 ON PURGATORY. 

whom prayer may be beneficial. "JSTot without 
good reason," says St. Chrysostom, "it was 
ordained by the Apostles that mention should 
be made of the dead in the tremendous mysteries, 
because they knew that these would receive 
great benefit from it."* The sequel of this 
passage, which you give, does not weaken its 
force. Deceased catechumens were not included 
in the solemn prayers of the liturgy, because 
they had died without partaking of the commu- 
nion of the Church ; but as hope was cherished 
that their desire and disposition were acceptable 
to God, almsgiving was recommended, that it 
might be profitable to them, through Divine 
mercy, since good works, as well as prayer, may 
be offered for the departed. St. Chrysostom 
remarks that as we pray for the worst of living 
men, so we may pray for the departed, whose 
actual condition we know not. 

The passages from the ancient Liturgies con- 
tain a commemoration of the Blessed Virgin 
and Saints, intended to express our communion 
with them, and that they have been saved by 
the merits of Christ, our victim. The words 
which follow remove all ^Mi^^a^ since the 
priest asks, "that we may be helped by their 
intercessions." St. Augustin remarks, that " it is 
an insult to a martyr to pray in his behalf, for 
we ought rather to commend ourselves to his 
prayers, t" 

* Horn. xxix. ad pop. Antioch. f Serm. xvii. de verbis Apostoli. 



ON PURGATORY. 127 

The testimony of Tertullian is admitted by 
you as proving the general custom of praying for 
the dead, since the pious widow " prays for the 
soul of her husband, and begs refreshment for 
him." He declares " ohlationes pro defunctis " to 
be a stated part of "Christian worship," as 
Archdeacon Wilberforce avows.* Your expla- 
nation of the text of St. Cyprian, as marking 
the difference between public penitents, and the 
faithful who had not fallen in persecution, is 
ingenious. "It is one thing," says this father, 
" to stand for pardon {ad veniam stare), another 
to attain to glory ; one thing to be sent to prison, 
not to go thence till the last farthing is paid, 
another to receive immediately the reward of 
faith and virtue ; one thing to suffer lengthened 
torments for sin, and to be cleansed and purged 
a long time by fire {emundari et purgari diu 
igne), another to have cleansed away all sins by 
suffering," namely, by martyrdom. You explain 
standing as referring to the posture of penitents 
" in the outward porch of the church ;" to be sent 
to prison, as meaning to be put on penance ; to 
remain there until the last farthing is paid, by 
undergoing its fall infliction ; and to be cleansed 
and purged a long time in the fire, as implying 
long and severe penance. The passage which 
immediately follows, entirely upsets this fanciful 
interpretation : " It is one thing to be in suspense 

^ The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 325. 



128 ON PURGATORY. 

as to tlie sentence of the Lord until the Day of 
Judgment, another to be immediately crowned 
by the Lord."* In this letter he maintains the 
propriety of pardoning and admitting to commu- 
nion in death, repentant apostates, and under- 
takes to solve the objection of those, who thought 
that such indulgence would take away every in- 
centive to fidelity and martyrdom. He observes 
that the pardon given to repentant adulterers 
did not cause the abandonment of holy virginity. 
Then he proceeds to show, that the penitent is 
not put on a level with the martyr in the Divine 
judgment, since he is kept in a state of suspense 
and suffering, whilst the martyr is immediately 
crowned with glory. St. Cyprian intimates that 
this state continues even to the last judgment. 
His work, addressed to Demetrian, a heathen, 
who by calumnies attacked Christianity, contains 
nothing inconsistent with what has just been 
stated. At its close, he tells him to be converted 
in time to the true God, for that at the Day of 
Judgment, repentance and entreaty will be fruit- 
less. Whilst life lasts, penance is never too 
late. Even in death, mercy is granted to him 
who implores the only true God with faith, con- 
fessing Him, and asking pardon. In stating 
that the convert from heathenism at the very 
hour of death passes to immortality,t St. Cyprian 
doubtless relied on the grace of baptism, which, 

■^" Ep. lii. ad Antonian. f L. ad Demetrian, 



ON PURGATORY. 129 

as we also hold, conveys entire pardon ; for 
"there is no longer any condemnation to those 
who are in Christ Jesus." This case is very 
different from that of the penitent apostate, 
whose state of suspense and suffering is else- 
where depicted. 

In his book on those who had fallen, St. 
Cyprian exhorts to repentance, confession, and 
satisfaction, whilst life remains, as after death 
there is no room for any exercise of salutary 
compunction. This perfectly accords with the 
Catholic teaching. 

St. Augustin prayed for the soul of his mother 
Monica, conformably to her request, but you 
think that his conduct was the result of his 
feelings rather than of his theology, which, in- 
deed, is contrary to his own express testimony. 
However, you admit that traces of our doctrine 
are found in his writings. He does not reject 
the sentiment of those who understand the 
Apostle (Cor. iii. 13), as intimating that imper- 
fect souls suffer a certain punishment of fire un- 
til the day of the resurrection ; because it is per- 
haps true ; " That some of the faithful are saved 
through a certain purgatorial fire, more slowly 
or more speedily, according to their greater or 
less love for perishable goods, may be' either 
found, or it may lie hidden." The doubt here 
implied seems to regard the punishment of ac- 
tual fire, rather than the fact of such souls being 
in a state in which they need prayer for their 



130 ON PURGATORY. 

relief. " It is not to be doubted," he says, as 
you yourself quote, " tbat the dead are aided by 
the prayers of the Holy Church, by the salutary 
sacrifice, and by alms-deeds offered for their souls, 
that the Lord may deal with them more merci- 
fiiUy than they have deserved. For, this custom 
delivered by the fathers, the whole Church ob- 
serves, that for those who are deceased in the 
communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
when they are commemorated in their place at 
that sacrament, prayer is made, and for them 
also the sacrament is offered."* Kyou compare 
this passage with the decree of the Council of 
Trent, t you will find that it was present to the 
mind of the fathers. What St. Augustin adds, 
that these things are profitable only to such as 
have lived, or at least died in a manner to be 
capable of deriving benefit from them, is a Ca- 
tholic principle. 

IsTo serious difficulty, as you imagine, was 
raised in the Council of Florence in regard to 
the nature of the punishments endured in Pur- 
gatory. At all events, we need not go beyond 
the definition in which the Greeks and Latins 
united. There is no evidence that this point 
was an occasion of the subsequent relapse of the 
Greeks, which regarded the procession from the 
Holy Ghost, and their subjection to the Roman 
See. The Tractarians observe : " They agreed 
together, as the Council shows, or at least, with 

* T. V. op. p. 57G, Serm. clxxii. § 2. fSess. xxv. 



ON PURGATORY. 131 

the slightest difference, on the question in which 
we are concerned, while the subsequent resent- 
ment of the Greeks at home had little or no re- 
ference to it ; and their agreement, under such 
circumstances, was only the more remarkable."* 

You have then. Right Reverend Sir, the con- 
sent of the Greeks with the Catholic Church on 
the existence of an intermediate state, in which 
the departed benefit by the prayers of the living. 
The perpetual custom of offering prayer for them 
is a practical display of the faith which we che- 
rish that they have slept in Christ, and are finally 
to repose with Him in glory. This usage, taken 
together with the public preaching of the Church, 
serves to shed light on certain passages of Scrip- 
ture, which might otherwise be deemed not suf- 
ficiently explicit. You admit, and strive to 
explain away the usage, by making it common to 
all the departed, even to the greatest saints, but 
it is plainly directed to obtain refreshment and 
repose for the imperfect only. 

The anecdote which you give us of our coun- 
tryman, who asked you for ten dollars to give 
the priest for Masses, to get his wife's soul out 
of Purgatory, shows how largely he calculated 
on your prejudices. He meant, perhaps, to 
drink your health at your own expense, and 
treat his companions, whilst exulting in your 
gullibility ; but he was justly disappointed by 
your discernment. 

- Tract No. 79. 



132 ON PURGATORY. 

Prayer for the departed is one of those con- 
soling practices of piety whicli the Keformers 
did not venture at once to discard, either, as you 
would say, perhaps, because they were still under 
Popish influences, or because they felt that they 
would provoke, unnecessarily, the popular in- 
dignation. The prayer which we use in the 
canon of the Mass was adopted in the first edi- 
tion of the Book of Common Prayer, with some 
slight modification : "We commend unto Thy 
mercy, Lord, all Thy servants which are de- 
parted hence from us with the sign of faith, and 
now do rest in the sleep of peace. Grant unto 
them, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy and ever- 
lasting peace, and that at the day of the general 
resurrection, we, and all they which be of the 
mystical body of Thy Son, may altogether be set 
on His right hand."* The words which follow 
" peace" are easily discernible as an addition to 
the prayer of the Missal. You appear not alto- 
gether opposed to this practice, but you do not 
advocate its revival. Yet you know it to come 
down from the earliest and purest period of an- 
tiquity. 

^ The two books of Common Prayer, compared. Oxford, 1841. 
pp. 296. 



LETTER XI. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

rLEURY states, as you remark, that tlie ple- 
nary indulgence was introduced by Pope Ur- 
ban n. to favor the crusade, at tbe close of tbe 
eleventh century ; but be adds that at all times the 
Church had allowed the bishops to remit a portion 
of the canonical penance. The complete remis- 
sion of the whole, which he regarded as a relaxa- 
tion of discipline, is what he alleges was first 
granted by Urban 11. to the crusaders. By re- 
marking that the indulgence was instead of wages 
to the soldiery, he does not mean that it was 
convertible into money. On the contrary, the 
crusaders not only served without pay, but even 
equipped and supported themselves, deeming it 
sufficient that they should gain the spiritual 
blessing. Indulgences were likewise granted to 
such as contributed to the expenses of these 
wars, because such generosity was deemed wor- 
thy of approval, and spiritual treasures were 
thought to be fitly distributed among those who 
had sacrificed their wealth for Christ. They were 

12 



134 INDULGENCES. 

granted by Leo X. to such as contributed to the 
building of St. Peter's. As it was lawful to so- 
licit the alms of the faitbful throughout the 
world for this great work of general importance, 
so it was allowable to encourage it by the pro- 
mise of spiritual treasures. There was nothing 
simoniacal, sacrilegious, or improper in thus em- 
ploying the power of the Church in favor of pe- 
nitent sinners. You accuse popes, cardinals, and 
bishops of it, as of a crime continued for four 
hundred years ; and call it a bargain and sale. 
I see in it, in the abstract, nothing criminal, al- 
though abuses incidental to it led to the sup- 
pression of the office of Questors, or collectors 
of alms, by the Council of Trent. 

The decree of this Council, which you' recite, 
refers to the importunities and exaggerations of 
the collectors, in urging the faithful to give con- 
tributions for the objects for which the indul- 
gences were proclaimed. They brand these abuses 
as pravos qucestus, which you translate wiched mer- 
cJiandizings, The abolition of that office took 
from the sectaries an abundant source of defama- 
tion. Yet, although no vestige of it remains, 
you insist that " indulgences are bought and sold 
as much as ever." They, sir, were never bought 
or sold ; and if, at times, abuses grew out of 
the custom of connecting with them collections 
for objects of religion, charity, or public conve- 
nience, that custom has been abolished. You 
say that " the price of indulgences is a serious 



INDULGENCES. 135 

item of tlie priestly and the papal income," 
whilst in fact, nothing whatever comes to priest 
or Pope from their use or concession. You say : 
" I leave it to your skill in Roman casuistry to 
defend the veracity of your favorite in the best 
way you can." It is easy to defend one who 
speaks the truth, which the Catholic world can 
attest, but I know only one way by which your 
veracity can be defended, namely, that you make 
your statements in entire ignorance of the facts. 
The argument drawn from the conduct of St. 
Paul towards the penitent Corinthian is not 
fairly met by you. "St. Paul gives directions 
concerning a single penitent, of whose case he 
was fully informed. The Pope issues millions of 
pardons to people of whom he knows nothing." 
The question now simply is. Did St. Paul free 
the penitent from further penance by authority 
received from Christ ? If he did, he granted 
what is technically called an Indulgence. The 
Pope grants it in general terms to all, who, being 
penitent, comply with certain religious duties. 
The number of persons in favor of whom the 
power is exercised does not change its character. 
*' St. Paul gives his judgment without money 
and without price. The Pope grants his Indul- 
gence for a consideration." As you repeat this 
calumny, let me use your own words : " "Wliich 
shall we most admire, the outrageous absurdity^ 
or the cool effrontery of such an argument?" 



136 INDULGENCES. 

The Jubilee, you allege, brings to Eome a 
vast amount of substantial treasure in return for 
the spiritual gift. In this you are mistaken ; it 
brings nothing whatever. Although almsdeeds, 
with fasting and prayer, are usually prescribed 
on that occasion, the object of the alms and the 
amount are left to the discretion of the faithful. 
'No portion of it, whatever, goes into the Roman 
treasury. The many indulgences specified in 
*'True Piety" are to be gained by confession 
and communion, without almsgiving. You 
appeal to me as knowing that it is a cash trans- 
action, since they cannot be had without the money, 

I know no such thing. I know on the con- 
trary that no money is given, or taken ; and 
despising the quibble by which you say the 
people give the price, and the priest gives the 
indulgence, I pronounce your statement utterly 
false and groundless. 

As to what is done in South America, your 
information can scarcely be relied on, since you 
are so grossly mistaken as to the usages which 
prevail around you. I am aware that in the 
dominions of Spain, a practice has existed which 
may give some coloring to your allegations. The 
Holy See was induced to grant certain privileges 
and exemptions, like those granted to the crusa- 
ders, whence it is styled the Bull of the Crusade, 
to persons contributing as alms a small sum, to a 
religious purpose, chiefly, I believe, the mainte- 
nance of missionaries in Jerusalem. Persons 



INDULGENCES. 137 

obtaining the certificate, or Bula, are dispensed 
with the obligation of abstinence, provided their 
physician and confessor deem it expedient ; eon 
el consejo de los dos medicos spiritual y corf oral. 
Its chief design is to impose a fine, by way of 
commutation, on persons seeking to be dis- 
pensed from the Church laws, as is done by the 
Church of England in case of marriage licenses, 
and various other exemptions from law. It has 
proved, I believe, fatal to that portion of our 
discipline in the Spanish dominions ; but it is 
not, after all, a sale of dispensations, or indul- 
gences. I am happy to say that no such usage 
exists in the United States, or throughout the 
Church generally. In the reign of Edward VI. 
an Act was passed enjoining abstinence on fish- 
days, " as a mean to virtue, and to subdue men's 
bodies to their soul and spirit, and also to en- 
courage the trade of fishing, and for saving of 
fiesh ; excepting such as should obtain the 
Bang's license ;" for which, no doubt, some fees 
of office were required. 

The treasure of the Church is a figurative ex- 
pression, which marks the sources from which 
she draws in exercising her power. The merits 
of Christ are infinite ; but the communion of the 
faithful is such that they also may benefit one 
another, by prayer, good works, or sufiTerings 
offered up one for the other. The excruciating 
torments endured by the martyrs, the extreme 

12* 



138 INDULGENCES. 

austerities of some penitents, the sujBTering of 
apostolic men in the propagation of the Gospel? 
may be profitable to the weaker members. The 
saints have, indeed, received a reward exceed- 
ingly great; their sufferings were momentary 
and light compared with the eternal weight of 
glory, with which they are crowned ; yet their 
endurance may be advantageously pleaded be- 
fore God to obtain for us some remission of the 
punishment due to our sins. It can only be 
offered through Christ our Lord, and through 
Him only can become available. 

You accuse Dr. Milner of omitting to state 
that indulgences are designed to remit to the 
sinner the torments of Purgatory, after he shall 
have passed away from the Church on earth. 
They are directed to remit the canonical penance, 
which was enjoined to satisfy the justice of God, 
who often inflicts temporal punishments for sins 
whose guilt is forgiven. Dr. Milner expressly 
states that indulgences remit not only the cano- 
nical penance, but the corresponding punish- 
ment in the sight of God. In this sense, in- 
dulgences may preserve from purgatory; but 
they are not given to any one, to take effect 
after his death. Some are applicable to the souls 
in purgatory, inasmuch as the living who gain 
them, may offer them in behalf of the departed ; 
but as the Church has no control over her de- 
parted children, they are not strictly effectual, 
but offered by way of suffi-age, in the confidence 
that God will accept them. 



LETTER XIL 

Right Reverend Sir : 

YOU charge Dr. Milner "witli a shameful 
withholding of the real worship which 
the Church of Rome renders to the Virgin and 
the Saints;" and in order to make good this 
grave accusation, you give extracts from certain 
books of devotion in use among Catholics. As 
he, however, quoted the words of the Council of 
Trent, in proof of our principles, justice requires 
that the expressions and acts . of devotion used 
by us should be explained in conformity with 
that standard. The passages which you quote 
from the popular prayer-book called "True 
Piety," when thus understood, contain nothing 
that is objectionable. They express great confi- 
dence in the prayers of the Blessed Virgin, as 
one most highly favored by Almighty God, and 
most dear to our Redeemer. I am surprised 
that you have not understood the addresses 
which are sometimes made to Him as the Infant 
Jesus. Dr. Pusey, in his treatise on baptism. 



140 DEVOTION TO THE 

admires the custom of tlie Church., by which she 
makes present to her children the various myste- 
ries which she celebrates, as if they happened 
at the present time. Thus contemplating the 
Incarnation, the Christian adores the Divine 
Infant, calls on Him for mercy, and gives him- 
self over to affections of gratitude and love. 'Ho 
one, — not even the most unlettered, imagines 
that He is still an Infant in the arms of His 
Mother. We know that He sits on high, at the 
right hand of His Eternal Father ; but Bethle- 
hem, with its wondrous scenes, is recalled to our 
minds, and whilst we give homage to Him in 
His humiliation, we implore grace and mercy 
for ourselves. You ask, " was it an Infant that 
taught the Saviour's doctrine, and worked 
mighty signs and wonders?" I answer it was 
He who lay an Infant in the arms of His Mother. 
In Him were "hidden all the treasures of the 
wisdom and knowledge of God." He was, 
even in His infantile state, the God of majesty, 
whom the angels adore with trembling. The 
self-same Son of the Eternal appeared a helpless 
babe, who redeemed us by His sufferings. "What 
you say in regard to the image of the "Bambino 
Gesu," at Rome, is an instance of the piety of 
individuals, who at a critical moment ask for 
relief from our Lord through His holy Mother, 
whose happy parturition they specially honor. 
You call our devotion to the Blessed Virgin 
Mariolatry ; yet you must perceive in the pious 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 141 

exercises at whicli you carp, enough to qualify 
their meaning. It may relieve you to be in- 
formed that as most of them are not sanctioned 
much less enjoined by authority, the most de- 
voted Catholic may abstain from their use. 
Idolatry, you remark, consists in giving the 
attributes of God to creatures, and you allege 
that we ascribe omnipresence, omniscience, and 
omnipotence to Mary ; but if you reflect that we 
recognize her as a mere creature, having no ex- 
cellence or power of herself, you will perceive 
that she can have no divine attribute. God 
is essentially self-existent, independent, and 
sovereign. Mary is always addressed as a sup- 
pliant at his throne, which necessarily excludes 
all idea of divine power or perfection. You 
take exception at her being styled in some 
private devotion ^Temple of the Trinity;* but is 
not every Christian such in some degree ? " Ye 
are the temple of the living God."* Omniscience 
implies boundless knowledge derived from no 
other. Our communion with the world of spirits 
is carried on with great simplicity. "We learn 
from Scripture that the angels are present, and 
witnesses of our thoughts, and we conceive the 
Saints and their Queen to have the like know- 
ledge, without troubling ourselves to understand 
the manner in which God imparts it to them. 

You are pleased to review some of the texts 
of Scripture which regard the Blessed Virgin. 

* 2 "Cor. vi. 16. 



142 DEVOTION TO THE 

The angelical salutation : " Hail, full of grace ;" 
is translated in your Bible : ^' Hail, thou that 
art highly favored;" which you maintain is 
much more faithful to the Greek words. Bloom- 
field, the Protestant commentator, approves the 
Vulgate version, observing, after Valcknaer, that 
verbs of this form imply heaping up, or filling 
up. What is more important, the Syriac ver- 
sion, made in the first or second age, has pre- 
cisely words corresponding to the Latin : — 

*' Peace be to thee, full of goodness." 

"Whatever tyros, to whom you refer, may 
think, scholars will scarcely agree with you 
that our version, which is almost as ancient as 
the Syriac, is ^' an unwarrantable gloss upon the 
original." As Syriac was the language used 
by the angel, being the vernacular tongue, it 
must be supposed that the Syriac interpreter 
gave the precise terms, which were probably 
retained in the pious exercises of the faithful. 
You confess the force of the prophecy, uttered 
by the Virgin herself: ^' Behold, from hence- 
forth, all generations shall call me blessed." 
" This," you say, " is undoubtedly high honor 
to the Virgin ; but it is limited plainly to the 
estimation of the saints below.'' I see in it no 
such limitation. The saints in glory no doubt 
regard as blessed above all other creatures, Her 
who was chosen to be the living tabernacle of 
the Incarnate God. Those who have loved 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 143 

Him most on earth, have always honored her 
with profound veneration. You "claim your 
full share in the honor due to her;" but how 
do you manifest it ? Is it by your systematic 
endeavors to decry devotion to her as idolatry ? 
Is it by seeking out matter of reproach to show 
her sinfulness ? 

You remark that our Saviour never calls her 
Mother, but woman. Is it not sufficient that 
the inspired evangelists frequently call her by 
that glorious name — " the mother of Jesus ?'* 
The inspired Elizabeth likewise styled her " the 
mother of my Lord." It was meet that our 
Lord Himself should abstain from it when He 
was called on to exercise His miraculous power, 
over which she had no control. Yet, as Bloom- 
field again remarks, "woman" was a term of 
affection and respect. If the words of our Lord, 
addressed to her when she sought a miraculous 
supply of wine, to relieve the parties from confu- 
sion at not being able to furnish their guests, 
imply independence of Her control in such 
works, as St. Augustin understands them, they 
do not certainly intimate a refusal. The fact ex- 
plains itself. She immediately directed the wai- 
ters to look for His orders, which she felt confi- 
dent would be given. Forthwith He bade them 
fill the vases with water, which, when brought 
to the master of the banquet, proved to be deli- 
cious wine. " He clearly shows," says St. Cyril 
of Alexandria, " how much parents should be 



144 DEVOTION TO THE 

honored, by proceeding at once to tlie perfor- 
mance of ttie miracle for His mother's sake, 
wliicli otherwise He would have deferred."* It 
may please you better to hear the Protestant 
Archbishop l^ewcome : "When our Lord had 
given this gentle rebuke, — He suffered her re- 
quest to sway Him, and seems to have made 
the first display of His glorious power partly in 
deference to her." 

You dwell on the silence of the Scripture in 
regard to her piety and virtue, as if the fact of 
her having been chosen to be Mother of God 
were not sufficient to warrant the belief of her 
high excellence and perfection. The belief of 
the mystery of God Incarnate, which preceded 
the writing of the New Testament, was neces- 
sarily attended with high esteem of the holy One 
who was its chief and immediate instrument. 
But although no elaborate panegyric of her vir- 
tues was framed by the sacred penmen, an angel 
proclaimed her acceptance with God, and the 
fulness of grace with which she was adorned. 
Her faith is declared eminent by Elizabeth, be- 
cause she believed the revelation made to her 
by the heavenly messenger. Several times it is 
stated, that she treasured up in her heart the 
things that regarded her Divine Child, and 
weighed them attentively. That she stood at 
the foot of the cross is more to her praise, than 

* In locum. 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 145 

if she had followed Him throughout His jour- 
neys, when thousands hung with admiration on 
His lips. It showed the tender, steadfast, fear- 
less affection of a mother ; it showed fortitude 
greater than that of woman. Her unassuming 
modesty, her meek devotion and profound hu- 
mility, are sufficiently indicated by the silence 
of the sacred writers on other occasions, when 
it was a matter of honor and pleasure to be 
near Jesus. She is especially mentioned as 
being in the company of the Apostles, when the 
Holy Ghost, in tongues of fire, descended on 
them. It was not her province to interfere with 
the government of the Church, which was con- 
fided to them — it became her not to dictate; 
but she persevered with them in prayer, and 
can we doubt that her supplications gave in- 
creased force to theirs ? "Would you have hesi- 
tated to ask her to pray to her Divine Son for 
you, if you had lived at that time ? Would 
you have thought your chance of success equal 
without her aid? She is now near Him in 
glory — her maternal relation being not dis- 
solved, as you most strangely fancy, but con- 
firmed and illustrated by higher gifts and pre- 
rogatives, than suited her state of pilgrimage. 
Saints and Angels, Cherubs and Seraphs must 
be amazed that a daughter of Eve should have 
been made worthy to give of her own substance 
the matter of which the Body of God's own Son 
was formed, — to bear Him as in a shrine, — to 

13 



146 DEVOTION TO THE 

bring Him forth, — ^to see, to toucli Him witli 
the familiarity and fondness of a mother. His 
affection for her was natural, as well as holy ; 
and as on earth He yielded to her requests, 
even when it seemed a departure from the ordi- 
nary rules of His high Providence, so in heaven 
He grants her, with filial kindness, the favors 
which she implores for frail mortals. All this 
you may regard as fond imagining ; but it is 
founded in the natural, indissoluble tie which 
binds the mother to the Son — in the very mys- 
tery itself, in which Mary gave to the world our 
Redeemer, and was thus made the channel of 
communicating to us every grace and blessing. 
For this reason, St. Bernard says, " Let us cling 
to Mary, let us venerate her with all our heart, 
since such is the will of God, who decreed that 
we should have all through Mary."* 

Instead of offering you my own reflections on 
those passages which seem to you to show, that 
" the Blessed Redeemer refused to attach any 
spiritual pre-eminence to the earthly relationship 
of His mother," I will lay before you the re- 
marks of St. Ambrose, on Luke viii. 20 : "He 
did not mean to reject the attentions of His 
mother ; for He Himself commands, ' Let who- 
soever dishonors father or mother, die the 
death ;' but He acknowledges Himself obliged 
to attend rather to the mysteries of His Father, 

" Serm. in Nat. B. V. Marise. 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 147 

than to indulge maternal affection. His mother 
is not disowned here (as some heretics insidi- 
ously pretend) ; even from the cross He acknow- 
ledges her." The words in parenthesis are not 
mine, hut those of Amhrose. What you re- 
gard as an intimation, that the temporary rela- 
tion of mother and Son was at an end,* — an 
absurdity, not to say an impiety, — St. Ambrose 
takes as a splendid proof of tender affection on 
the part of the expiring Saviour. He remarks, 
that John alone records what " the others passed 
over in silence, — how Christ on the cross ad- 
dressed His mother, deeming it of greater im- 
portance to state, that He who triumphed over 
torments and punishments, the conqueror of the 
devil, performed the duties of filial affection, 
than that He bestowed the kingdom of heaven. 
For if it be an edifying fact, that pardon is given 
by the Lord to a robber, it is far more edifying 
that the mother is honored by her Son. But 
neither was Mary wanting in what became her 
as mother of Christ ; since whilst the Apostles 
fled away, she stood before the cross, and with 
tearful eyes looked on the wounds of her Son ; 
for she did not look to the death of her beloved, 
but to the salvation of the world, "f 

I am sorry to find you asserting that in the 
time of Augustin the Virgin Mary was not 

* Vol. ii. p. 75. t In Luc. 1. x c. xiii. 



148 DEVOTION TO THE 

called " the Mother of God," whilst St. Cyril of 
Alexandria proved to the fathers of Ephesus, in 
the council held the year after the death of Au- 
gustin, 431, that this title had always heen given 
her, and was necessarily implied in the mys- 
tery of the Incarnation ; which they also con- 
firmed. What Augustin says, that ^' so far as 
concerned His Deity, He had no mother," is a 
self-evident truth ; " but it is also true," as he 
adds, " that so far as concerned His humanity, 
He had." " For the Lord of heaven and earth 
came by a woman. He was made of a woman. 
He was the son of Mary." This is what the Ca- 
tholic Church holds. You quote Augustin, as 
affirming that " Mary from Adam was dead, be- 
cause of sin ;" which words are the more com- 
mon reading of a passage in his commentary on 
the thirty-fourth psalm. It is well for you to 
know that in the Vatican and Colbertine manu- 
scripts the reading is different : " Mary from 
Adam, Adam died because of sin ;" and then is 
added : " the flesh of the Lord, from Mary, died 
to cancel sins." The other passage which you 
object, says of our Redeemer : " Plis flesh alone 
was not the flesh of sin, because His mother con- 
ceived Him not by concupiscence, but by grace." 
This justly proves that He alone, in virtue of His 
supernatural conception, was exempt from sin. 
^'All the flesh of others is the flesh of sin," be- 
cause all others, in consequence of their natural 
conception, are subject to that sin which is com- 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 



149 



mon to all the posterity of fallen man. Whether 
Augustin meant thereby to deny any privilege 
or exemption, even in regard of her from whom 
the flesh of Christ was taken, I venture not to 
say ; but he himself has warned us that in general 
expressions, however strong, he does not mean 
to include the Blessed Mother of our Lord. In 
arguing against the Pelagians, he stated that all 
men but Christ alone, even the eminent servants 
of God, are sinners, and fall into sin ; and sup- 
posing some one to object the instances of seve- 
ral saints, whose virtues are praised in Scripture, 
and among them, the Virgin, he answers with 
confidence, that if they were to reappear on 
earth they would all acknowledge themselves to 
have been sinners, with the exception of her 
alone ; " excepting, therefore, the Holy Virgin, of 
whom when treating of sins, I am altogether 
unwilling to entertain any question, for the honor 
of the Lord ; for hence we know that greater grace 
was bestowed on her to overcome sin in every 
respect, as she was made worthy to conceive and 
bring forth Him who certainly was without sin."* 
You surprise me. Eight Keverend Sir, by the 
novel meaning which you assign to the term 
■deoToxog or Deipara, which you translate Gf-odbearer. 
It certainly was employed by the Council of 
Ephesus to express " Mother of God." All rea- 
soning against her maternity is destroyed by the 

■''■ L. de Natura et Gratia, c. xxxvi. n. 42. 
13* 



150 DEVOTION TO THE 

Apostle, who says, that *' God has sent His Son 
made of a woman."* Your views of this sub- 
ject are utterly opposed to sound doctrine, as so- 
lemnly declared by that ancient Council, on the 
authority of the Sacred Scripture and of apos- 
tolic tradition. " To constitute a mother,'' you 
say, "the woman must produce a living crea- 
ture which has derived its nature and its qualities 
through her instrumentality, so that it is of the 
same race, and is truly her offspring or progeny,'' 
According to this reasoning Mary was not the 
mother of Jesus ! Did she not conceive Him, 
according to the prophecy of Isaiah, as well as 
bring Him forth ? Do you imagine, with some 
of the followers of Apollinaris, that His flesh 
was not taken from her substance, by the 
Divine operation of the Holy Ghost, but gliding 
down from heaven, passed through her as a con- 
duit ? Every one who has a correct view of this 
mystery must be shocked at your language, 
which betrays the most erroneous views. Dr. 
]^evin has truly said : " The man cannot be 
right at heart in regard to the faith of the Incar- 
nation, whose tongue falters in pronouncing 
Mary Mother of God !" This is the great source 
of opposition to the veneration of the Blessed 
Virgin. The mystery of the Incarnation is in- 
correctly viewed, and men who have but vague 
notions of it, from want of theological training, 

* Gal. iv. 4. 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 151 

are easily offended at the consequences which 
necessarily flow from it when rightly understood. 
The Church, on the contrary, by cherishing this 
devotion, leads her children to give constant 
homage to the mystery on which it is founded. 

Allow me to draw your attention to other er- 
roneous language which has escaped you, in your 
effort to depreciate the maternal rights of the 
Virgin. " That relationship is a question of the 
body. The heavenly relationship is a question 
of the soul. ' ' The body of Christ was, of course, 
formed of the substance of His mother, whilst 
His soul was created and united with it by the 
act of Divine Power ; but the relationship of the 
Son to the Father is the relationship of the Se- 
cond Divine Person to the First Divine Person, 
which subsisted from eternity. The assumption 
of the human nature, body and soul, by the se- 
cond Divine Person, constitutes the mystery of 
the Incarnation. If you refer to this relation- 
ship, it is by no means confined to the soul, since 
the Apostle expressly says: "Thou hast fitted 
me a body;" intimating thereby, that Christ in 
the flesh offered the atonement. The God man, 
therefore, is the Son of God, the Father; the 
second Divine Person having assumed, not the 
body alone but the human nature. He is also 
the Son of Mary, the body united with His soul 
being assumed by Him. Mary is the Mother 
not of the mere flesh of Christ, but of Christ 
Himself, as our parents are called such, although 



152 DEVOTION TO THE 

our souls be created by the direct action of God. 
For tbis reason sbe is called, and is Motber of 
God, an appellation so closely connected witb 
tbe mystery, tbat it was made, as Dr. Il^evin well 
observes, a tessera, or standard of ortbodoxy, by 
tbe Council of Epbesus, no less strictly tban tbe 
term consubstantial bad been made sucb by tbe 
Mcene fatbers. To suppose tbat tbe Divine 
Person supplied tbe place of tbe soul, is tbe be- 
resy of Apollinaris, condemned in tbe fiftb cen- 
tury ; to deny tbat Mary is Motber of God, is to 
renew tbe exploded beresy of J^estorius. 

Tbe corporal assumption of tbe Blessed Vir- 
gin into beaven, altbougb not an article of Ca- 
tbolic faitb, is an ancient tradition, of wbicb you 
find traces in St. Epipbanius. Tbe narrative 
given by St. Jobn of Damascus bas been in- 
serted in tbe Breviary ; but you are aware tbat 
tbis does not put it beyond question. Tbe cele- 
bration of tbe feast by tbe Cburcb affords tbe 
strongest argument in support of tbe fact, al- 
though, as tbe object of it is not specially defined, 
we can suspend our assent, without derogating 
from her authority, or incurring censure. You 
are mistaken in conceiving tbat the Virgin is 
thus put on a level with her Son, whose ascen- 
sion is believed on the testimony of the Sacred 
Scriptures. There is an obvious difference be- 
tween the terms assumption and ascension, tbe 
former term implying tbe act of Almighty God, 
who takes to happiness His humble handmaid — 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 153 

the latter designating the act of Christ Himself, 
who by His own divine power, rose to the high- 
est heavens. You may not feel satisfied with 
the evidence of the ancient tradition ; but it is 
remarkable that it should at all exist, if without 
foundation, since the early Christians were wont 
to preserve the remains of the eminent servants 
of God; and yet none ever boasted that they 
possessed the body of the Virgin. 

St. Basil interprets the prophecy of Simeon, 
that a sword should pierce the Virgin's soul, of 
some fluctuation or agitation of mind, (Tahufioq, 
when beholding the crucifixion ; but for which he 
seems to think she would not have needed the 
application of His Blood. This regards per- 
plexity of mind, rather than moral fault ; yet 
even so you will scarcely insist upon its correct- 
ness. The sublime prediction marked the ago- 
nies of her maternal heart, as she stood at the 
foot of the cross ; which did not imply any defect 
on her part. The narrative of the Evangelist 
gives no indication of it, but presents her as a 
model of fortitude, as well as of maternal afiec- 
tion, standing, where other mothers would have 
swooned away. You know. Eight Reverend 
Sir, that our respect for the authority of the fa- 
thers does not oblige us to accept the interpre- 
tations which individuals among them may give 
of particular passages of Scripture. 

The testimony of Popes Leo and Gregory es- 
tablish the stainless perfection of our Redeemer 



154 DEVOTION TO THE 

as necessarily resulting from His supernatural 
conception, and tlie assumption of the human na- 
ture by the second Divine Person. Such general 
expressions can scarcely avail to exclude a privi- 
lege such as the Church recognizes in the Virgin, 
especially since the same writers elsewhere ex- 
press the most exalted sentiments of her dignity. 
St. Gregory, in his commentary on the books of 
Kings, speaks of her as one " who transcended, 
by the dignity to which she was chosen, the 
highest elect creatures ;" and as a mystical moun- 
tain, whose height is above that of all others. 
"Is not Mary a high mountain, since in order to 
be worthy to conceive the Eternal "Word, the 
summit of her merits rose above all the choirs 
of angels, even to the throne of the Deity ?"* 

St. Epiphanius justly condemned the supersti- 
tion of the Collyridians, who had priestesses of- 
fering cakes to the Virgin, whence they derived 
their name. He forbade all worship to be given 
her, such as is given to God, but he encouraged 
all to honor her, as the Mother of our Lord. 
The ambiguity of the term "worship," by which 
you render the Greek, enables you to use his 
testimony with effect for such as take words in 
their popular signification, without regard to 
the circumstances in which they are employed. f 

It is injurious to our Lord Himself, as well as 
to His Virgin Mother and St. Joseph, to suppose, 

^ L. i. in 1 Reg. c. i. n. 5. j L. iii. p. 400, E. 



BLESSED VIROTN. 155 

with you, that when they missed Him, as they 
were about to return from Jerusalem, they sought 
Him amongst their kinsfolk and acquaintance, 
"as if he were a common youth, seeking to amuse 
Himself during the religious festival." Such a 
thought could not have entered into their minds. 
They supposed Him to be on His way home in 
the company of their kinsfolk, and sought Him 
accordingly in the different bands of travellers, 
His age allowing Him to go with either company 
of men or women. They knew well that He 
was fully intent on doing the will of His Father, 
but they were not aware that He would have 
manifested His wisdom in the temple at that 
early period of His life. Accordingly, after a 
day's journey, being convinced that He had 
remained behind for some high purpose, they re- 
turned. His Mother ventured to inquire of Him 
the reason of His leaving them in anxiety and 
pain. His answer shows, indeed, that His first 
care was to fulfil the will of His Heavenly Fa- 
ther, but it does not imply any disregard of her 
maternal claims on His afliection and obedience. 
The fact that " He went down with them, and 
was subject to them,"* puts this beyond contra- 
diction. 

It is somewhat extraordinary, that after such 
a determined effort to depreciate the dignity and 
merits of the Holy Mother of our Lord, you 

*Lukeii.5l. 



156 DEVOTION TO THE 

should have ventured to quote tlie passages of 
tlie ancient Liturgies, especially those in use at 
Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria, 
which so highly extol her. They contain those 
expressions of her Divine maternity, which, to 
you, appear so low and sensuous, although they 
are sanctioned by Holy "Writ, which tells us that 
St. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Ghost, pro- 
nounced blessed the fruit of her womb. Your 
delicacy shrinks from such plain language. The 
Liturgy, bearing the name of St. James, was used 
at Jerusalem before the days of St. Cyril, whose 
fifth catechesis makes evident reference to it. In 
this the Virgin is styled : " Our most Holy, im- 
maculate, superlatively blessed, and glorious 
Lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary." 
The singers assisting at the Holy Sacrifice say : 
"It is meet that we should magnify thee, the 
ever blessed, immaculate parent and mother of 
God, who art of more honor than the cherubim, 
and incomparably more glorious than the sera- 
phim." Again they sing : " Thou, full of grace, 
art the joy of the whole creation, both of angels 
and men ; a temple of holiness ; a spiritual para- 
dise, and the glory of virginity, of whom the Deity 
was incarnate, and our God, whose being was from 
eternity, was made a child. For thy womb was 
His throne, the seat of Him whom the heavens 
cannot contain."* Do you find in our devotional 

• Vol. ii. p. 86. 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 157 

books anything more sublime in praise of the 
Virgin Mother ? This language is common to 
all the ancient liturgies, and is still employed 
by the Greeks, who style the Virgin " all holy, 
stainless, superlatively blessed, and glorious 
Lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin 
Mary." It is generally admitted by the learned, 
that the liturgies, in their actual form, can be 
traced back to the fifth century, and that they 
contain the substance of worship as prescribed 
by the Apostles, so that wherever there is a ge- 
neral agreement in their language, it affords the 
strongest presumption of apostolic tradition. 
Here you find this entire harmony, which you 
would fain disturb by conjecturing that these 
liturgies have been interpolated in this regard. 
You do not indeed venture openly to dispute 
their authority, but you observe that they con- 
tain prayers for the Virgin and the saints. A 
closer inspection may convince you, that they are 
commemorated, only as Abraham and David are 
mentioned in various parts of Scripture, to lay 
before God their merits and services, that through 
regard for them. He may have mercy on us ; and 
to show the communion which unites the saints 
already glorified with the faithfal on earth. In 
fact, you yourself give passages from the litur- 
gies of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, in which 
Christ is implored to pardon sin " through the in- 
tercessions of His ever spotless and Virgin Mo- 
ther;" and again of her and all the saints : ^'for 

14 



158 DEVOTION TO THE 

the sake of whose prayers and intercessions, have 
mercy upon us." In the Ethiopian liturgy we 
read : " May all their prayers for us be accepted." 
St. Cyril closes his commemoration in like man- 
ner : " That God, through their prayers and sup- 
plications, may receive our prayers."* But you 
observe that no address to Mary, or the saints, 
in the form of prayer, is contained in these li- 
turgies. The same remark may be made in 
regard to the Roman Missal, at this day. The 
more ancient and solemn mode of intercessory 
prayer is the indirect one ; but it is the same in 
substance as the more popular mode of address- 
ing the saints themselves. In imitation of the 
Scripture style : " Remember Thy servant Da- 
vid, O Lord, and all his meekness ;" the priest 
begs of God to remember His departed servants, 
and for their sakes to grant us mercy. All those 
objections which you urge against Dr. Milner's 
theory of a revelation being made by God to the 
saints, may be here again urged ; but the fact of 
this form having come down from the apostolic 
times, shows satisfactorily that they are ground- 
less. Besides, the difficulty which you advance, 
of the prayer being heard, may also be alleged 
against the praise which is here devoutly given 
to the Mother of God ; and must be as easy of 
solution in both cases. All that you allege 
against any mediation but that of Christ, our 
Redeemer, is equally applicable to this ancient 

* Vol. ii. p. 86. 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 159 

usage, as to our direct addresses, so that we stand 
or fall with the Basils and Chrjsostoms, and the 
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexan- 
dria. If jou admit these formularies, you can- 
not consistently censure our practice. 

Dr. Milner referred to St. Irenseus, who calls 
Mary the advocate of Eve, having compensated 
by her obedience for the disobedience of our 
first mother. You avow the difficulty of ex- 
plaining this text, but deny that it can have re- 
ference to prayers offered by Mary for Eve, who 
was dead more than four thousand years, or 
that it can authorize us to seek her prayers. 
The meaning of the saint is not quite so incom- 
prehensible. He draws a parallel between our 
frail parent and the Virgin Mother of our Lord : 
"As Eve was seduced through the speech of an 
angel, that she might depart from God, and vio- 
late His word ; so Mary, through the speech of 
an angel, was evangelized so as to bear God, 
being obedient to His word. And if Eve dis- 
obeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to obey 
God, that the Virgin Mary might become the 
advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human 
race was bound to death through a virgin, it is 
saved through a virgin ; the scales being equally 
balanced; — virginal disobedience by virginal 
obedience."* You perceive. Right Reverend 
Sir, the prominent part which this early father, 
after St. Justin, ascribes to Mary in the great 
work of redemption. The fate of Eve was 

* Adv. liacr. I. v. c. xix. 



160 DEVOTION TO THE 

sealed four tliousand years before; but it was 
only in anticipation of tlie atonement to be 
offered on Calvary, by the Son of Mary, that 
her offence was pardoned. The obedience of 
Mary to the angel's message was present to the 
Divine Mind, with the mystery to be accom- 
plished on her assent, and thus she became 
virtually an intercessor for her frail mother. If 
then her advocacy thus anticipated availed Eve, 
so we may hope that it will prove profitable to 
those who now earnestly seek it. 

The contrast which you form between our 
professions of devotion and confidence towards 
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and those 
which we use to the Blessed Virgin, is wholly 
without foundation ; for as we acknowledge her 
to be a mere creature, and to possess no gift or 
power, unless by the free concession of the 
Creator, on account of her intimate relation to 
Christ, there is an essential difference in the 
force of all our expressions and acts regarding 
her. God is an independent, all-sufficient, eter- 
nal Being. Jesus Christ, the God-man, has, as 
God, all the divine attributes in their fulness; 
and His human nature is replenished with all 
holiness, in virtue of its assumption by the 
second Divine Person. "]^o other name under 
heaven is given to men, whereby they can be 
saved." These principles being fixed and un- 
changeable, the devotional expressions employed 
towards the Virgin are necessarily qualified, and 



BLESSED VIRGIN. 161 

must be interpreted without prejudice to the 
Divine perfections, or to the essential mediator- 
ship of Christ. If jou understood this matter 
practically, you would soon feel that all is har- 
mony, where you fancy rivalry and opposition. 
We flee to Mary, as to the Mother of our Re- 
deemer, asking her to plead with her Divine 
Son, and obtain through His Blood pardon of 
our manifold offences. You are offended that 
she should be styled Queen of Heaven, which 
implies only that she is first and greatest of 
the saints. But what place would you assign 
her? It is her peculiar privilege to be the 
Mother of our Divine Redeemer ; and must she 
not be nearest to Him in glory ? 



14* 



LETTER XIII. 

Right Reveeend Sir : 

THE honor wliicli we render to tlie saints 
and angels, and tlie petitions wHcb. we 
address to them, tliat they may intercede with 
God for us, are censured by you as idolatrous. 
In order to support this charge, you avail your- 
self of an equivocal term employed by the great 
controvertist Bellarmin, when explaining the 
manner in which vows are made to the saints. 
He maintains that vows, strictly so called, imply 
a solemn promise to God ; and adds that vows 
made to the saints, are made to them only inas- 
miich as they partake of His glory, being united 
with Him. In this sense he uses the terms, 
* ^ dii per participationem. ' ' * Instead of cavilling 
at a word so carefully qualified, you should 
have reflected, as you elsewhere admit, that ^' it 
is not the giving the name of God to a creature 
which constitutes the sin of idolatry. "f This 
term, without the accompanying limitation, is 
applied by the sacred penman to the judges, as 
acting under divine authority.^ In order to 

* De Eccl. Triumph. 1, iii. c. ix 

t Vol. ii. p. 63. % Ps. Ixxxi. 6 ; John x. 34. 



ON THE VENERATION OF THE SAINTS. 163 

give coloring to your censure, you translate the 
term divus, God, wlien applied to the saints, 
although you must know that in our usage it 
bears no such meaning. This may gratify the 
bigot, or mislead the unlearned : it cannot sup- 
ply the place of argument. 

We reverence the saints only as servants of 
God, on whom He bestowed the gifts of His 
grace, and the glory of His kingdom. We 
acknowledge in them no perfection which is 
not derived from His bounty; and we ascribe 
to them no power, independent of His free 
concession. Through the merits of Christ our 
Saviour, they have been sanctified and ren- 
dered triumphant over the enemy of souls, and 
through His atonement must be obtained what- 
ever we hope from their prayers in our behalf. 
We give them not that glory which belongs to 
God, for we know that He is jealous of His 
honor ; but we honor them for His sake, and to 
Him we refer ultimately all homage, saying 
with the Apostle : "To the King of ages, im- 
mortal and invisible, the only God, be honor 
and glory."* With our whole heart we say 
with the holy deacon, whose words you recite 
from St. Augustin, that we do not adore, but 
honor them. The term worship, which you 
employ, is ambiguous. 

As you are unprepared to admit that the early 
Christians gave religious veneration to the good 

* 1 Tim. i. 17. 



164 ON THE VENERATION 

angels, you translate the celebrated passage of 
St. Justin after this manner : " We worship and 
adore Him and His Son who came out from 
Him (and hath taught us respecting these things, 
and respecting the host of the other good angels 
who follow Him, and are made like unto Him), 
and the Prophetic Spirit, honoring them in 
reason and in truth."* I take leave to submit 
the translation given in the collection called 
"The Faith of Catholics," which is strictly 
literal, beginning somewhat higher to give a 
clearer view: "Hence we have also been called 
Atheists, and we confess that we are unbelievers 
(Atheists) of such pretended gods, but not of the 
most tT\ie'(Gfod) and Father of righteousness 
and temperance, and of the other virtues, and 
of a God in whom there is no mixture of evil ; 
but both Him, and the Son who came from 
Him, and taught us those things, and the host 
of the other good angels that follow and resemble 
[Him, or them), and the Prophetic Spirit, we 
venerate and adore, honoring in reason and 
truth, and freely delivering, to every one who 
wishes to learn, even as we have been taught. "f 
To those who understand the structure of a 
Greek sentence, it will not appear possible to 
admit your parenthesis, with the insertion of the 

* Vol. ii. p. 99. 

+ AXX' Ikeivov re, koL tov nap' avru' vidf i\2^ovra Kal StSa^avra n/jias 
ravra Kal tov twv a\\(j)v enofiepcov Kal e^ofxoiyfihcjv dya^iov dyyeXwj^ 
OTpardVf nvevjxa t£ to TrpocpririKOv aePofis^a kuI npotrKvvujxsv. Apol. I. n. 6. 



OF THE SAINTS. 165 

term "respecting;" but as this may be too 
abstruse a discussion for most readers, I will 
content myself with giving the passage in the 
note, and leave you to justify your translation to 
the learned. It may embarrass some to hear St. 
Justin speak of venerating and adoring, if the 
preceding terms regard the angels as the objects 
of veneration, but as they chiefly regard God the 
Father, and His Son, on whom the angels are 
represented as waiting in attendance, and to 
whom they are said to bear resemblance, the 
terms must chiefly be applied to the Divine 
Persons, and to the angels only in their relation 
to them. In addressing Pagans, for whom the 
apology was intended, it was unnecessary to make 
nice distinctions, especially as the terms were 
then applied without much discrimination, to 
various acts of religious worship. The other 
passages of St. Justin, which you quote, throw 
no new light on this text. He elsewhere says, 
that Christians adored the Creator, the Son, who 
taught us the truths of life, and the Prophetic 
Spirit,* without mentioning the good angels in 
connection with the Son, which is not surprising, 
since it was unnecessary to repeat that which 
was only secondary and subordinate in worship. 
Again, he observes that Christians pay tribute, 
giving to Csesar the things which are of Caesar, 
to God the things which are of God ; and in this 
connection he observes: ""We therefore adore 

* Ibidem, n. 13. 



166 ON THE VENERATION 

God alone, but clieerfully serve you in other 
matters."* This worship of God alone is of 
course that supreme honor which to Him alone 
is due, and which the Gentiles wished to be 
given to idols. It nowise excludes that vene- 
ration of the good angels, in honoring whom 
they honored the followers of God's only Son. 

You quote Dr. Milner's answer to the objec- 
tion that the invocation of the saints involves, of 
necessity, a belief in their omnipresence : " How 
does it follow, from my praying to an angel or 
a saint, in any place, that I necessarily believe the 
angel or saint to he in that place ? Was Elisha 
really in Syria when he saw the ambush pre- 
pared there for the King of Israel ? — (2 Kings, 
vi. 9.) But it is sufficient that God is able 

TO KEVEAL TO THEM THE PRAYERS OF CHRISTIANS 
WHO ADDRESS THEM HERE ON EARTH. "f YoU do 

not, as far as I can perceive, explain the fact, or 
meet the reasoning ; but, as if the Divine reve- 
lation here spoken of implied on the part of God 
a formal communication to the saints of the 
prayers addressed to them, you ridicule the 
idea, and amuse your readers with some curious 
calculations of the number of Ave Marias daily 
recited. This low view of a supernatural opera- 
tion is justly rejected by the author of Tract 
ITo. 71. "When it is said that the saints 
cannot hear our prayers, unless God reveal 
them to them; so that Almighty God, upon 

* Ibidem, n. 17. t Vol. II. p. 43. 



OF THE SAINTS. 167 

the Roman theory, conveys from us to them 
those requests which they are to ask back again 
of Him for us, we are certainly using an unreal, 
because an unscriptural argument, Moses, on 
the Mount, having the sin of his people first 
revealed to him by God, that he in turn might 
intercede with God for them. Indeed, it is 
through Him, in whom we live, and move, and 
have our being, that we are able in this life to 
hear the requests of each other, and to present 
them to Him in prayer. Such an argument, 
then, while shocking and profane to the feelings 
of a Romanist, is shallow even in the judgment 
of a philosopher. ' ' Your illustrations, borrowed 
from the court of an earthly king, are sadly 
deficient. The revelation which God made to 
His prophets of things distant, or future, was a 
communication of Divine light, in which these 
were presented; and His revelation to His 
glorified saints, as conceived by St. Thomas 
Aquinas, is a manifestation by which they view, 
as in a mirror, all that it concerns them to know. 
In these days, when information is communi- 
cated with the speed of lightning to parts the 
most distant, shall men continue to measure the 
knowledge of spirits by natural rules, and pre- 
scribe limits beyond which it cannot extend? 
Most people ascribe to the devil greater know- 
ledge than you are willing to admit in the saints. 
By some chance you pass over the chief points 
on which Dr. Milner insists, and leave a great 



168 ON THE VENERATION 

hiatus in your quotation, without giving any 
hint of it to your readers. After the passage 
from 2 Kings, vi. 9, he proceeds: "Again, we 
know that there is joy before the angels of God 
over one sinner that repenteth. (Luke xv. 10.) 
iN'ow is it by visual rays, or undulating sounds, 
that these blessed spirits in heaven know what 
passes in the hearts of men upon earth? How 
does his Lordship {the Bishop of Durham) know, 
that one part of the saint's felicity may not con- 
sist in contemplating the wonderful ways of 
God's providence, with all His creatures here on 
earth ?" This might have been worthy of some 
notice, but it was more convenient to pass it over. 
May I add, that it appears to me sufficient 
that the saints know in general the usage of 
asking their intercession, without any special 
knowledge of the petitions addressed to them. 
They may plead with God for all who desire 
their prayers, and thus benefit them in propor- 
tion to the earnestness with which each one sup- 
plicates them. I do not, however, doubt that 
they have a clear intuition of the prayers them- 
selves, in the Divine light with which they are 
replenished. You, yourself, admit that they 
plead with God for men, and you even suppose 
them to be acquainted with the commemoration 
made of them in the Liturgy. Concerning the 
faithful, you ask: "Do they not desire that he 
(the departed saint) may remember them^ when he 
joins the blessed spirits of the just made perfect. 



OF THE SAINTS. 169 

Do they not hope that the privilege of his 
prayers to God, on their behalf, may still be 
continued to them, now that he is removed so 
much nearer to the Fountain of all grace and 
heavenly benediction ?"* You thus admit their 
intercession, and their knowledge of the com- 
memoration made of them on earth. You 
explain the testimony of St. Chrysostom re- 
garding the refreshment and joy which departed 
souls derive from prayer offered in the sacrifice, 
of the satisfaction which is afforded them by 
knowing that they are still loved and remem- 
bered by the faithful on earth ! 

You are scandalized, Right Reverend Sir, at 
various expressions in the Litany of St. Joseph, 
who, among many very high-sounding titles, is 
styled "Ruler of the Lord of the Universe." 
These were used to express that subjection 
which our Lord practised to Joseph, as well as 
to Mary, as Luke testifies. But it may relieve 
you to be informed that Litanies are not in favor 
with the authorities at Rome, excepting the few 
very ancient and general formularies, found in 
the Breviaries, Missals, Pontificals, and Rituals, 
with the Litany of Loretto. The Rules of the 
Index forbid them all, although the Litany of 
Jesus has subsequently been sanctioned. I 
trust, that in this respect at least, they will 
meet your cordial approval. If you ask me, 

* Vol. ii. p. 305. 
15 



170 ON THE VENERATION 

why they appear in our Prayer-Books, I must 
answer that this form of prayer is so popular, 
that our publishers despair of selling books 
which have not a good supply of Litanies, and 
the Bishops can scarcely urge the rule, without 
exciting grave murmurs. The terms employed, 
although sometimes bordering on exaggeration, 
are generally reducible to strict theological 
accuracy, and whilst they startle the indevout 
and unbelieving, express the outpourings of a 
heart earnest in its appeals for mercy, through 
its favorite advocate. 

You deny that "there is any power in the 
Church militant to decide what individuals the 
Lord may have chosen to glorify"* among His 
saints; but do you question the propriety of 
honoring the memory of the Apostles ? Do you 
blame the early Christians, who met on the anni- 
versary of illustrious martyrs, such as Ignatius 
and Polycarp, and gave God thanks, in solemn 
worship, for their triumph ? It was thus, as you 
know, that the practice of celebrating the festi- 
vals of the saints was introduced. The process 
of canonization is a safeguard against mistake, 
which supposes miraculous evidence of the ac- 
ceptance of the individual with God. Such 
evidence being furnished, it is God who mani- 
fests His good pleasure to glorify His servant. 
The edification afibrded to the faithful by the 

* lb. p. 96. 



OF THE SAINTS. 171 

public judgment and testimony of tlie chief 
Bishop, founded on it, is a sufficient reason for 
proposing the virtues of the saint to veneration, 
since we are more easily influenced by example 
than by precept. If St. Paul ventured to pro- 
pose himself as a model to others, inasmuch as 
he studied to imitate Christ, it cannot be un- 
becoming for the Pope to propose to the Church 
at large the examples of men, who have been 
found true followers of our Lord. St. Francis 
de Sales, St. Charles Borromeo, and others, 
exercise a happy influence in the cause of virtue, 
far greater than they could have exercised had 
not the Church proclaimed their sanctity and 
happiness. 

The infidel Gibbon ascribed to the honors 
given by the early Christians to the martyrs, the 
ardor with which so many exposed themselves 
to death for the faith, and the great increase of 
Christians. 

Your reasoning on the miracles ascribed to 
the saints, is not very philosophical. Those 
recorded in Scripture are, indeed, supported by 
all those evidences which prove Christianity, 
and are consequently far more credible than 
facts which are unconnected with a great moral 
revolution. Yet miracles, accompanied with 
the conversion of a nation, such as those of 
Augustin in England, Xavier in the Indies and 
Japan, derive great credibility from an event so 
extraordinary. The miracles recorded in every 



172 ON THE VENERATION 

age of the Church, by witnesses of great in- 
tegrity and discernment, are not easily to be 
discarded, although we should be slow to believe 
any deviation from the ordinary course of things 
without strong proof. Facts attested by wit- 
nesses above suspicion, and approved by a tri- 
bunal remarkable for its severe scrutiny, should 
not be slightly rejected. In making light of 
evidence supporting modern miracles, a disposi- 
tion may be fostered adverse to the belief of the 
Gospel miracles themselves, and men may be 
tempted to view with distrust, if not to mock, all 
that is supernatural. Your language is far from 
being characterized by that moderation which 
your very solemn professions might lead us to 
expect. "True, indeed, it is, that the impiety 
of your Popes has presumed to institute the old 
heathen apotheosis, by enrolling some hundreds 
of saints amongst the angelic hosts, and au- 
thorizing your deluded people to address their 
prayers to them, as the ancient pagans did to 
their Dii minorum gentium.'''^ You, sir, are the 
fit person to speak of "the atrocious malignity 
of spirit " of Dr. Milner.f You are mistaken in 
ascribing the ridicule of Voltaire and Rousseau, 
to "the false miracles of Popery, connected 
with the notorious licentiousness of the priest- 
hood," for their satire was chiefly directed 
against the Holy Scriptures, and they paid, from 

* p. 379. tP-381. 



OF THE SAINTS. 173 

time to time, homage to the virtues of our reli- 
gious communities. Yoltaire avows, that "it is 
undeniable that eminent virtues have adorned 
the cloister. Scarcely any monastery is without 
admirable souls, who do honor to human nature. 
Too many writers have taken delight in seeking 
out the disorders and vices by which these 
asylums of piety were sometimes defiled. It is 
certain that the life of seculars has been always 
more vicious, and that the greatest crimes have 
not been committed in monasteries ; but their 
vices have been more remarked from their con- 
trast with the Eule."* 

* Essai sur THistoire, t. iv, ch. cxxxv. 



15* 



LETTER XI Y. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

YOUR answer to Dr. Milner's argument in 
favor of the veneration of relics, is by no 
means satisfactory. His statement of tlie mind 
of the Church is fully sustained by the Council 
of Trent, which you yourself cite, and by the 
second Council of ITice, which you have mis- 
understood. The object of the Mcene fathers 
was to vindicate the Church from the charge of 
superstition and idolatry in the reverence paid 
by her to the memorials of the saints, and they 
very properly referred to the usages prevailing 
among themselves, by which this veneration was 
testified. Their anathemas do not fall on such 
as omit these practices, which are devotional; 
but only on those who condemn them, and 
ground on them their unwarrantable charges. 
The assertion of Dr. Milner, that such usages 
are no essential part of religion, is perfectly con- 
sistent with the canon of this Council, cited by 
you, which requires relics to be deposited on 
the altars; because, though this be not essen- 



ON RELICS. 175 

tial, yet the Church is at liberty to enjoin that 
which is pious, and calculated to bring to the 
minds of the faithful the martyrs, who are re- 
presented in the Apocalypse as under the altar 
on which the Lamb stands as it were slain. 
The resuscitation of the dead man, when his 
corpse touched the bones of the prophet,* is an 
evidence that God sometimes manifests His 
favor towards His servants after their death, by 
miraculous operations ; and it naturally sug- 
gests that their remains should be viewed with 
marked reverence. The preservation of the 
rod of Aaron, and of the vase containing manna, 
near the tabernacle, was a memorial of miracu- 
lous events, and bore a resemblance to the care 
which we employ in preserving sacred memo- 
rials with honor. The breaking in pieces of 
the brazen serpent, which had become an occa- 
sion of idolatry, shows that in case of abuse, the 
objects of religious veneration should be re- 
moved ; but it proves nothing against due reve- 
rence being paid to them. The use of incense is 
an act of idolatry, when it is directed to supreme 
worship, as was the case with the heathen ; but 
of itself it does not imply it, so that it depends 
on the intention, as also on external circum- 
stances. 

You refer to the burial of St. Stephen. Have 
you read in St. Augustin, Orosius, and other 

* 4 Kings xiii. 21. 



176 ON RELICS. 

authors of the fifth century, the account of the 
divine revelation made of his relics, and of 
their being transported to Africa, carried in 
procession from place to place, and proving the 
instrument of many miracles ? If you refuse to 
believe these venerable witnesses, I care not ; but 
I remind you that they bear the most unequivo- 
cal testimony to the usage of venerating relics ; 
and that they cannot be forced to your side, 
although you have ventured to quote a passage 
of St. Augustin which points out some abuses, 
altogether foreign to this holy practice. He 
states distinctly the fact : " They carry indeed 
the relics of the most blessed and glorious 
martyr Stephen, which your Holiness (he writes 
to the Bishop Quintilian) well knows how you 
should suitably honor, as we have done."* 
Again he says : "A little dust has gathered to- 
gether so vast a multitude. The ashes are con- 
cealed ; the favors are manifest. Reflect, dearly 
beloved, how great blessings God reserves for 
us in the land of the living, since He grants us 
such, by means of the dust of those who are de- 
parted."t You venture to quote St. Ambrose; 
but have you not read that he discovered, at 
Milan, the bodies of the martyrs Gervase and 
Protase, and testified with Augustin,'! to mira- 
cles wrought on that occasion, appealing at the 

* Ep. ccxii. alias ciii. ad Quintil. 

f Serm. cccxvii. alias xcii. de diversis. 

J L. xxii. de civ. Dei, c, viii. 



ON RELICS. 177 

same time to all the inhabitants of Milan, as 
knowing the facts ? If Dr. Milner thus sported 
with authorities, you would have reason to say, 
that " he presumed greatly on the ignorance of 
his readers." In the work styled " The Church 
of the Fathers," written by Dr. l^ewman long 
before he became a Catholic, you will find full 
evidence of this ancient and pious usage. It is 
impossible to open the writings of the fathers 
of the fourth and fifth centuries, Gregory of 
!N"azianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, or any other, 
without meeting, almost on every page, passages 
which prove that the remains of the martyrs 
were believed by all to be frequently the instru- 
ments of miraculous operations. 

The tales about the relics of St. Thomas a 
Becket, are of no consequence whatever, where 
a principle is in question. His truly was a hal- 
lowed shrine, consecrated to the memory of a 
prelate who resisted the encroachments of the 
second Henry on the rights and privileges of 
the Church. The piety of the faithful had en- 
riched it with costly ornaments, which excited 
the rapacity of Henry VIH., disturbed as he 
was by the silent reproach of the martyr. He 
accordingly abolished his festival, caused a mock 
trial to be held, and sentence to be passed on 
him as a traitor. His bones were to be ex- 
humed, and publicly burnt ; the plates of gold 
which covered his shrine were carried away, 
the gems with which it was studded were 



178 ON RELICS. 

seized, one of them, of special lustre, tlie gift of 
Louis the Seventh, heing thenceforward worn 
by the tyrant. These disgracefal proceedings 
might call even for your reprobation. As to 
relics which are not recommended by satisfac- 
tory testimony, Catholics are free to reject them. 
Let credulity be shunned ; but let not a usage 
as ancient as the Church herself be wantonly 
condemned. Offerings made at shrines are 
usually silver tablets commemorative of some 
favor believed to have been obtained ; not gifts 
to the priests. There is no rivalry between the 
saints and Christ their Lord. Every act done 
in their honor is grounded on the relation which 
they bear to Him, and redounds necessarily to 
His glory. You ask : " Did not our Lord know 
the humble faith of the woman who touched 
His garment, and will her recovery?" Cer- 
tainly ; but it was on the occasion of her per- 
forming that act with confidence in His power 
and goodness. No one expects any benefit 
from touching sacred memorials, unless in pro- 
portion to his faith, and to the benign will of 
the Almighty. "Did not St. Paul's prayers 
attend the use of those aprons and handker- 
chiefs?" This I know not. God may have 
granted the cures to show His approval of His 
servant and messenger, without any prayer spe- 
cially directed by the Apostle to that end. But 
no matter. ^No one hopes for any Divine favor 
from the touch of any relic, unless through the 



ON RELICS. 179 

prayers of the saint. You say that the garment 
of our Lord, and the aprons of St. Paul, were 
not relics, since their owners were then living 
on earth ; but the principle is the same, since 
these material objects were made the instru- 
ments of miraculous cures on account of the rela- 
tion they bore to Christ and to His apostle : and 
so the various objects which we call relics, — the 
bones of the saints, or things belonging to them, 
may be made the instruments of supernatural 
favors, when it so pleases God. That they 
have been such, is attested by all the illustrious 
writers of the fourth and fifth ages especially. 

You observe : "J^o man of common feeling, 
or reflection, ever censured the wish even to pre- 
serve a relic of remarkable men or deeds, as an 
object of association, which must interest pos- 
terity."* In fact, an old box, which served 
Washington in the war of Independence, is 
preserved respectfully in the capitol; and the 
sword of the hero of l^ew Orleans, has lately 
been presented with great formality to Congress. 
The feeling is natural and just, which leads us 
to cherish memorials of men whom we esteemed 
and loved. It is hallowed and ennobled by 
religion, and awakens a deeper sentiment and 
stronger affection. "But if you say to me," 
observes St. Ambrose, " what do you honor in 
that flesh which is already wasted and con- 

* Ep. II. ad sororem Marcellin. 



180 ON RELICS. 

sumed ? I honor in tlie flesli of the martyr the 
wounds which he received for the name of 
Christ ; I honor the memory of one who still 
lives on account of his undying virtue ; I honor 
ashes that have heen consecrated by the confes- 
sion of the Lord ; I honor in those ashes the 
seeds of eternity ; I honor the body which points 
out to me that I should love the Lord, and 
teaches me not to fear death for His sake. "Why 
should not the faithful honor that body which 
even demons reverence? which indeed they 
afflicted in martyrdom, but which they glorify 
in the tomb ? I honor, then, the body which 
Christ honored by the sword, and which will 
reign with Christ in heaven."* 

If you compare this language, and that of 
the ancient fathers generally, with the language 
of the Breviary, or of Catholic preachers at this 
day, you will find no reason to accuse us of ex- 
aggerated views of the honor due to relics. The 
parallel which you draw between the heathenish 
superstitions which St. Cyril of Jerusalem de- 
scribes, and the pious practices of devout Catho- 
lics, who humbly hope to be cured of infirmities 
through the intercession of the saints, has no 
foundation, since he expressly treats of the 
shrines of demons, or of their worship by super- 
stitious rites performed near rivers. The confi- 
dence of the faithful in the early ages of the 

* Serm. xciii. tie S. Nazav, et Celso, in fine. 



ON RELICS. 181 

Church was equally as strong, nay, far stronger, 
because the instances of relief were frequent and 
striking. 

What you give as a proof of superstition will 
not appear such even to your Protestant readers, 
when they understand the circumstances, name- 
ly, that the body of St. Isidore of Seville, was 
purchased at a great price, by Ferdinand I. King 
of Castile and Leon. Some might imagine that 
it was a matter of bargain and sale between Ca- 
tholics ; but the simple fact is, that the Saracens 
had possession of the country where his body 
was interred, and the Catholic king ransomed 
it at a large price, through veneration for his 
memory. The temple erected afterwards, in 
which it was deposited, was, of course, conse- 
crated to Almighty God, to whom alone we 
dedicate all our churches, although, as it was de- 
signed to honor the memory of the holy Bishop 
of Seville, it bore his name, as is usual. The 
various miracles ascribed to his body, and those 
of other saints, do not surpass, if they equal, 
that which the Scripture relates of the bones of 
the prophet, the contact with which resuscitated 
a dead man; and cannot be rejected merely on 
account of their extraordinary character. Their 
credibility must be judged of by the rules of evi- 
dence. 

The custom of kneeling to sovereigns, and 
the English usage of bowing before the vacant 
throne, are referred to by Dr. Milner, to vindicate 

16 



182 ON RELICS. 

the inferior and relative honor which we pay to 
sacred memorials. You, Right Eeverend Sir, 
deemed it an honor to he allowed to bend the 
knee, and kiss the hand of Queen Victoria. Did 
you abjure your fidelity to God ? 

Assuredly every one understands that these 
very solemn marks of respect imply nothing in- 
compatible with the Divine honor. You say: 
"Were nothing more than this involved in the 
doctrine or practice of Rome, we should never 
have thought the question worth an argument." 
Something more is implied in it, because the re- 
spect shown to princes is of a civil character, 
whilst that shown to sacred objects is religious ; 
but both are inferior and subordinate, so that they 
are altogether different from the homage rendered 
to Grod. You speak of the worship of images 
and relics as profitable to the priests, thus endea- 
voring to prejudice your readers against our 
practice as interested : but I am an utter stran- 
ger to any pecuniary gain attached to it. I have 
visited the shrines of the saints, and bent before 
their images, and seen thousands perform the 
like acts of devotion, but I have never seen or 
known the smallest sum of money to be given 
or received on such an occasion. You may jeer- 
ingly speak of " the deluded multitude paying 
their offerings of silver and gold, to touch the 
holy coat at Treves, to adore the holy tooth of 
St. Peter, or to fall down before the winking 



ON RELICS. 183 

statue of the Virgin of Ancona." I know no- 
thing of St. Peter's tooth, and I have not visited 
Treves or Ancona, yet from the universal prac- 
tice of all the countries in which I have travelled, 
or lived, I am perfectly assured that nothing 
whatever is demanded or given for any exhibi- 
tion of relics. It is only in places like "West- 
minster Abbey, which have passed into the 
hands of the stranger, that money is exacted for 
visiting the shrines and tombs of the saints. 

The kissing of the Gospels in courts of jus- 
tice, when an oath is taken, was alleged by Dr. 
Milner as an instance of religious honor rendered 
to a material object in reference to Christ our 
Lord, whose words they contain. This is per- 
fectly analogous to our veneration of sacred me- 
morials ; yet you deny its force, because it is not 
alike in all the accompanying circumstances. 
" Where is the incense ? where are the lights ? 
where are the prayers of faith ? where is the hope 
of receiving important aids and blessings ? where 
is the association of the act with the alleged 
cures, the miraculous deliverance from sickness, 
calamity, and danger ?" It is not necessary that all 
things should be alike, if the main point be the 
same. The act is plainly an expression of religious 
homage, the same which is performed by the priest 
when he kisses the Gospel at the altar. The in- 
cense and lights accompany it in the solemn ce- 
lebration of the mysteries, both being directed 



184 ON RELICS. 

in like manner to honor Christ, whose words are 
read to shed light on Jews and Gentiles. The 
effects hoped for occasionally from the applica- 
tion of sacred things are wholly distinct from 
the usage itself. It is rarely that they are sought, 
whilst the marks of religious honor are inces- 
santly given to the precious memorials. That 
God has sometimes granted them is heyond all 
reasonable question. The cure of the afflicted 
woman by the touch of our Saviour's garment, 
and of many sick persons by the application of 
the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, prepare us for 
similar manifestations of Divine power in behalf 
of those, who, with faith and humility, seek re- 
lief in affliction. 

Although it is notorious that St. Jerom de- 
fended the veneration of relics against Vigilan- 
tius, you have the courage to quote in your 
behalf, a passage selected from a letter written 
expressly for this purpose. That you may get 
due praise for your skill in drilling witnesses, 
I shall first state that the letter is addressed to 
the priest Riparius, who had informed St. Jerom 
of the attack, made somewhat in your own style, 
by Yigilantius on Catholics as "gatherers of 
ashes, and idolators, who venerated the bones of 
dead men." In reply, Jerom says: "We do 
not worship and adore, I do not say the relics 
of the martyrs, but not even the sun and moon, 
not the angels, not the archangels, not the 
cherubim, not the seraphim, or any name which 



ON RELICS. 185 

is named either in this world or in the other, 
lest we should serve the creature, rather than 
the Creator, who is blessed forever." This is the 
passage which you quote. 'Now let your witness 
proceed with his testimony: "But we honor 
the relics of the martyrs, so as to adore Him 
whose martyrs they are. We honor the servants, 
that the honor may redound to the Lord, who 
says: 'He thatreceiveth you, receivethMe.' Are 
then the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean ? 
Is the body of Moses unclean, which, according 
to the Hebrew truth, was buried by the Lord 
Himself? and as often as we enter the basilica 
of the apostles and prophets, and of all the 
martyrs, do we venerate temples of idols ? and 
are the lights which are lighted at their tombs, 
the evidences of idolatry?"* IS'ow, sir, we will 
let the witness leave the stand. 

* Ep, liii. ad Riparium. 



16* 



LETTER XV. 

Right Reveeend Sir : 

I AM pleased to find that sacred images are 
unobjectionable in your eyes, as mere repre- 
sentations. "1:^0 sensible man," you say, "ever 
found fault with, sculpture or painting as a 
memorial of past events, or of departed friends, 
or as a tribute to peculiar greatness, either in 
Church or State."* You assent, therefore, to 
their use, as books for the unlearned, as St. 
Gregory styles them : but you are scandalized 
at the reverence paid to them, by those who kiss 
them affectionately, bow their head to them, or 
prostrate themselves before them. All these 
usages, together with some others, more com- 
mon among the Greeks, are to be judged of by 
the known intention and principles of those who 
practise them, and especially by the solemn 
declarations of the Church. The second Council 
of Mce,t whilst approving of them, expressly 

* Vol. ii. p. 113. t Hard. Cone. Gen. t. iv. p. 455. 



ON SACRED IMAGES. 187 

sajs that " supreme worship which is according 
to faith, and alone becomes the Divine I^ature," 
must not be given to images. If you cannot 
understand, why an intellectual Christian may 
without sin kiss a crucifix, or prostrate himself 
before it, neither may you account for the fond- 
ness with which a son, in a foreign land, presses 
to his lips the miniature of a loved mother. St. 
Gregory, writing to Secundinus, who had asked 
for a picture of our Saviour, observes : " I know 
that you seek the image of our Saviour, not with 
a view of adoring it as God, but in order to have 
present to your mind the Son of God, and to 
excite His love in your heart, whilst you behold 
His image. We also prostrate ourselves before 
it, not as before the Deity, but we adore Him, 
whom by means of the image, we recall to mind 
in His birth, or passion, or seated on His 
throne."* 

The fact of St. Epiphanius tearing down an 
image of some one, which he found hanging in 
a church, as if it were the image of Christ, or of 
a saint, tells rather in favor of the use of images, 
than against it, for he seems to have been in- 
dignant that the picture of some unknown person 
should occupy a place becoming only the image 
of our Lord, or some of His eminent servants. 
He accordingly promised to give one more suita- 
ble in its place. t This shows that his objection 

* Ep. ad. Secundin, 1. ix. p. 411. "j" Hopkins, vol. ii. p. 118. 



188 ON SACRED IMAGES. 

regarded the particular picture in question, not 
tlie usage itself. 

Dr. Milner justly availed himself of a fact 
recorded by Eusebius as an early instance of 
statuary being employed for religious purposes, 
namely, to commemorate a favor received from 
Christ. The historian testifies to the erection 
of two brazen statues at Edessa, in memory of 
the cure of the woman by the touch of the gar- 
ment of our Saviour, and mentions without re- 
jecting it, the prevalent persuasion, that persons 
were healed by the use of the plant w^hich grew 
at the bottom, and rose to the fringe of the 
brazen cloak. He also states as notorious that 
paintings of Christ and of His Apostles Peter 
and Paul, were to be found. He accounts, in- 
deed for this, from the usage existing among 
the heathen to raise statues to their benefactors. 
Nothing, however, is said by him condemnatory 
of the practice, as continued by them after their 
conversion, and applied to religious objects. 
His testimony is not brought forward to prove 
that pictures were then used in worship ; but it 
shows conclusively that statues and paintings 
were already employed to represent sacred sub- 
jects. 

Your mode of quoting testimonies is most un- 
fair. • You begin with Clement of Alexandria, 
who, you say, " thus speaks on the subject of 
images made for the purposes of religion, ^ Those 
images which are made by vile and sordid men, 



ON SACRED IMAGES. 189 

are made of vain and useless materials ; hence 
they are also vain, useless, material, and profane. 
Therefore, the works of art are by no means to 
be esteemed sacred and divine."* You conceal 
from your readers that the author is especially 
treating of heathen idolators, and you mutilate 
the text for this express purpose ; it runs thus : 
"It is ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves 
say, for man, who is the sport of the gods, to 
make a god, and that God should be made after 
a ludicrous fashion ; since the work is like its 
material, so that of ivory you have an ivory god ; 
of gold, a golden one. Idols and temples which 
are made by vile men are formed of sluggish 
matter, so that they also are inert, material, and 
profane ; and, however perfect the art, they 
partake of vileness. The works of art are not 
then sacred and divine. "f The term ayalpura 
simulacra, means idols, as the Lexicon explains 
it ; it is generally used of statues of horses, oxen, 
or other animals, objects of idolatrous worship. 
You have left out altogether hpa the temples. I 
leave you to account for this dishonorable ma- 
nagement. 

St. Ambrose, whom you quote, moralizes on 
the fact related in Scripture, that Kachel hid the 
Teraphim, which she had taken from the house 
of her father. What these were it puzzles in- 
terpreters to divine, but the saint takes them for 

* Vol. ii. p. 114, f Stromal. 1. vii. § v. 



190 ON SACRED IMAGES. 

objects of idolatrous worship ; and as lie considers 
Rachel to be the type of the Cburcb, lie observes : 
" Holy Rachel, that is, the Church, or prudence, 
hid the idols (simulacra)^, because the Church 
knows not empty ideas and vain figures of idols ; 
but she knows the true substance of the Trinity. 
Finally, she has abolished the shadow, and mani- 
fested the splendor of glory."* I am at a loss 
to know what force this passage can have against 
the use and veneration of Christian images. St. 
Ambrose spoke of the superstitious objects, or 
idols, which Rachel concealed, and he stated that 
the Church, having a knowledge by faith of the 
Divine Trinity, imparts it to her children, and 
leaves them not to seek God, as the heathens, in 
vain idols. Elsewhere he expresses the same 
sentiment : " Blessed Rachel, who, by her off- 
spring took away our shame ; blessed Rachel, 
who hid the worship and errors of the Gentiles, 
and declared tha;t their idols are full of unclean- 
ness."t 

St. Augustin reproved most justly those who 
eat and drank to excess at the tombs of the dead, 
and practised certain superstitions, whom he 
calls worshippers of tombs, or of pictures ; but 
he praised the picture of St. Stephen, which 
hung in the Church, where he pronounced the 
panegyric of the martyr: '' This is a very sweet 
picture, where you see St. Stephen stoned, and 

^ De fuga saeculi, c. v. f De Jacob et beata vita, I. ii. c. v. 



ON SACRED IMAGES. 191 

Saul in charge of the garments of those who 
stone him."* 

Optatus relates that a report was spread by 
the Donatists, that on the arrival of Paul and 
Macarius, the imperial officers, who were ex- 
pected to assist at the holy sacrifice, an image 
would be placed on the altar. f You infer that 
it was a sacred image ; but from the official cha- 
racter which they bore, and the previous mea- 
sures taken by them in the name of the Empe- 
ror, to repress the schism, there is great reason 
to believe that it was his portrait or arms. This 
rumor got coloring from the fact, that Macarius 
had condemned several Donatists for crimes 
against the public peace. However, it proved a 
false alarm, and all things proceeded as usual in 
the celebration of the sacrifice. 

St. Gregory reproved Serenus, Bishop of Mar- 
seilles, for breaking a sacred image, on the pre- 
text that it had become the occasion of supersti- 
tious worship, yet he commended his zeal, to 
prevent such abuse. You infer, thence, that he 
was averse to any of those marks of reverence 
which we now give to sacred pictures ; but his 
words already cited prove the contrary. The 
contrast which you form between his teaching 
and that of the second Council of Mce, rests on 
an equivocal term, which by him is employed to 

* Serm. cccxvi. alias xciv. de diversis. 
tL. iii. de schisrnate Donat. sub finem. 



192 ON SACRED IMAGES. 

denote supreme worsTiip, whilst it is used by 
them of an inferior degree of worship, as they 
expressly state. 

The very ancient custom which Tertullian at- 
tests, of representing Christ on the chalice under 
the image of the Good Shepherd,* is deemed un- 
exceptionable by you; but you deny that it 
avails to establish the usage and veneration of 
images as now practised. It shows, however, 
that in the earliest times such representations 
were deemed suitable in connection with public 
worship, and in the immediate celebration of its 
highest mysteries. It is certain, also, from the 
examination of the catacombs, that they were 
made on the walls, on the sarcophagi, and in a 
great variety of ways ; so that although they 
were chiefly designed for instruction as well as 
ornament, they prove that the usage of sacred 
pictures is most ancient. Every fact that esta- 
blishes this usage serves to vindicate it in its 
present form, for the marks of respect shown to 
images are but a consequence of their being used 
in worship. If the Council of Elvire forbade 
" what is worshipped to be painted on the walls," 
it must have had local reasons to require this 
prohibition, which never was general, and can 
have no application to the circumstances of our 
times. Dr. Milner has clearly stated that the 
usage is purely disciplinary, and dependent on 

* L. de pudicitia c. x. 



ON SACRED IMAGES. 193 

the discretion of the Church, who, however, hurls 
her anathema against those who condemn it as 
implying idolatry or superstition. 

The honor given to images is wholly referred 
to the objects represented by them, since in 
themselves they have no virtue or excellence. 
Hence the kissing of them, bowing to them, 
prostrating ourselves before them, or any like 
act of devotion, suggested by the piety of in- 
dividuals, or prescribed in the solemn ritual of 
the Church, is to be regarded as directed to such 
object. Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, under 
Henry YIH., in defending certain acts of respect 
then paid to sacred images, observed, that "if 
they had been used to be censed and to have 
candles offered unto them, none were so foolish 
to do it to stock or stone, or to the image itself, 
but it was done to God and His honor before 
the image."* The ritual of Good Friday di- 
rects that the Crucifix be uncovered, which 
during the preceding weeks had been veiled, 
and that as its arms are successively exposed, 
the faithfal should be admonished by the cele- 
brant, and invited to adore. " Behold the wood 
of the cross, on which the salvation of the world 
hung; come, let us adore." It is then laid on 
the steps of the altar, and the clergy, after three 
genuflexions, kiss the sacred image, which is 
subsequently honored in like manner by the 

*Strype Eccl. Mem. p. 52. 
17 



194 ON SACRED IMAGES. 

people, or simply kissed by them at the commu- 
nion railing, as is generally practised here. 
These are the most solemn acts which we per- 
form, and the only acts which are specially pre- 
scribed, if we except the bowing to the cross by 
the priest, when he passes before it. The object 
of our adoration, as explained by St. Gregory, is 
the Saviour Himself. Dr. Milner pointed to the 
ceremony of bowing at the name of Jesus, which 
is practised by th^ members of the Church of 
England, as calculated to illustrate our usages 
in regard to the cross, and other sacred images. 
You reply that the name is no image. It is 
something less, it is a fleeting sound, directed 
nevertheless to represent the Saviour to our 
thoughts. You add that the worship is not 
given to the name, but to God, who alone can 
be the rightful object of worship. I trust you 
do not deny that our Eedeemer, even as man, 
is rightfully worshipped, on account of the union 
of the human nature with the Divine in the 
second Divine Person. "We then worship our 
Redeemer Himself, whom the image, like the 
sound, presents to our mind. "If the same ar- 
gument could be pleaded for the images and 
relics of Rome, her advocates might claim a 
sure and easy victory."* These are your own 
words. The victory is ours. 

The miraculous opening of the eyes of certain 

•Vol. ii. p. 112. 



ON SACRED IMAGES. 195 

images of the Virgin, which you ridicule, is to 
be judged of on principles of evidence. The 
Holy See is extremely cautious not to admit any 
miracle without satisfactory proof, so that if, as 
you assert, it allows even a local festival to be 
celebrated in commemoration of such a fact, 
there is the strongest presumption that the testi- 
mony has been found satisfactory. llTowhere 
in this age, are people so easily imposed on as 
not to be able to discover trickery and fraud, if 
it exist, in a matter which is public, and open to 
observation for a long period. Intelligent indi- 
viduals and men hostile to religion are always 
found among the crowd of observers. "When, 
then, thousands attest a fact such as that which 
you deride, I do not venture to reject it, lest I 
fall into scepticism with regard to facts of a still 
more extraordinary character recorded in the 
Divine writings. Yet, as the Church does not 
make such facts matters of necessary belief, I 
use no effort to bring my mind to positive assent, 
as long as the evidence is not brought under my 
view. Thus credulity and temerity are avoided. 
I am at no loss, however, to conceive why God 
may vouchsafe to give such extraordinary indi- 
cations of His favor, at periods when impiety 
seems to triumph, to console and support His 
servants, by the reflection that their Mother and 
Advocate turns towards them eyes full of com- 
passion, and pleads for them above, as also to 



196 ON SACRED IMAGES. 

manifest His approval of the devotion to her, 
which is assailed by the profane. 

You do not, Eight Reverend Sir, think it 
beneath you, to renew the charge of our omit- 
ting the second commandment, "while, in order 
to prevent the cheat from being discovered, they 
split," you say of us, "the Tenth Command- 
ment into two."* All the words of the com- 
mandments, especially that appendage of the 
first, which you make a distinct commandment, 
are in our ordinary catechisms in use in this 
country, from the beginning, as well as in our 
larger catechisms, and the Bible. In the small 
catechisms of Europe, it was customary to give 
only the first words, that children might more 
easily commit them to memory. On this very 
reasonable custom that most unjust charge is 
based. You know that in the division of the 
commandments, we follow St. Augustin, and that 
the Lutherans agree with us. Even Cranmer, 
in the catechismus set forth under Edward, re- 
tained the same division. 

You endeavor to fasten on Dr. Milner the 
charge, if not of forging a testimony, at least of 
producing it with full knowledge of its being a 
forgery. The passage was quoted more than a 
thousand years before his lime, in the second 
General Council of Mce, as an extract from a 
letter of St. Basil to Julian the Apostate. To 

* Vol. ii. p. 129. 



ON SACRED IMAGES. 197 

prove that Dr. Milner knew it to be supposi- 
titious, as modern critics regard it, you state that 
in the Parisian edition which he used, "the 
heading of the very page on which it stands pre- 
sents the title, ^Epistolse Spurise.'" Give me 
leave to say, this is false. The extract begins, 
and the greater part of it is found on the pre- 
ceding page. You express "renewed surprise 
that this Apostolic Yicar had descended to cite 
the false and pretended testimony of Basil, with 
the title Spurious Epistles, staring him in the 
face."* The title stared Dr. Milner in the face, 
only as a sign-board hanging on the opposite 
side of the way. The general heading under 
which this extract is given, includes some letters 
having no date, some of doubtful authenticity, 
and some certainly spurious. Various letters 
are then given without any particular brand. 
On the page following the one on which the ex- 
tract commences, the title of ^ Spurious Epistles ' 
first appears. There is, then, no evidence to 
support your accusation. Yet you add: "Such 
is the Jesuitical m.orality, which deems it no sin 
to use a pious fraud for the sake of proselyting." 
"What principle of morals can justify this whole- 
sale calumny? 

*Ib. p. 197. 



17* 



LETTEE XYI. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

AS you have not cared to substantiate your 
quotations, or sustain your reasonings on 
tlie Primacy, in detail, I must confine myself 
to those points on which you specially join 
issue. You maintain anev7 that izhpoq means a 
stone, whilst Tzirpa means a rock, so that ac- 
cording to you, the text of St. Matthew, xvi. 
V. 18, runs thus: "Thou art a stone, and 
on this rock I will build my church." The 
utter want of connection in this mode of ex- 
plaining the text, sufficiently shows its incon- 
gruity. You quote many passages of the Old 
Testament, to prove that God is called a rock, 
which you demonstrate by reference to the He- 
brew term, literally rendered in the Protestant 
version. Your erudition, however, is thrown 
away in endeavoring to establish a distinction 
in the text of the promise, on account of the 
Greek terms, since it is certain that in the Syriac 
the same term is employed in both places. As 
this was the language which our Saviour used, 



ON THE PRIMACY. 199 

there is no possibility of distinguishing what is 
so clearly identical. The most learned Pro- 
testant interpreters, English and German, as 
Bloomfield avows, have long since abandoned 
the distinction as untenable. 

In the text of Luke xxi. 24, which you quote, 
our Lord checks the ambitious tendencies of 
His disciples, and inculcates humility as the ne- 
cessary duty of the highest in authority: "He 
who is the greatest among you, let him be as 
the least." He also warns Simon to confirm his 
brethren, assuring him that He had prayed for 
him specially, that his faith might not fail. This 
you chose not to notice. Your other objections 
from Scripture, as well as that just solved, have 
been already met in my former work, so that I 
shall content myself with stating that Cave, the 
learned Anglican, acknowledges that Peter acted 
the chief part in the Council of Jerusalem. 
Grotius says that his epistles have an energy 
characteristic of the prince of the Apostles; and 
even Calvin admits that he appears as their leader. 

You insist that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, 
because Irenseus says that " he delivered to Linus 
the episcopal right to govern it." Yet this may 
be understood of his directing him to take charge 
of it after his death, since the same writer says, 
that Clement, who succeeded Anaclitus, after 
Linus, was "third in succession from the 
Apostles;" which supposes that the chair was 
first filled by either of them. He ascribes the 



200 ON THE PRIMACY. 

foundation of the Roman See to both Peter and 
Paul. iTo one imagines that St. Peter remained 
at Pome, or at Antioch, during the whole period 
assigned to his occupancy of either See. His 
special relation to the See did not abridge his 
apostolic authority, or prevent his attention to 
the Church at large. 

Origen, when not indulging his usual fondness 
for mystical interpretation, as in the passages 
which you object, states distinctly that " supreme 
power to feed the sheep was given to Peter."* 

Cyprian, in numberless passages, even in that 
which you quote, affirms that on "Peter the 
Church was built," and praises him for not 
having put forward his primacy to silence Paul, 
when reproved by him. You admit that " he 
appears to have adopted, to some extent, the 
notion which was now beginning to be main- 
tained in favor of Roman supremacy."t 

Eusebius testifies to the coming of Peter to 
R;Ome, and that Linus was the first to hold the 
episcopate after his martyrdom, which proves 
that during his lifetime, Rome had no bishop 
but himself. 

St. Ambrose, in the passage which you object, 
speaks of Peter's faith as the foundation of the 
Church, referring especially to his belief in God 
Incarnate, as he is refuting the Arians. His 
privilege, he affirms, is communicated to each 

* In Ep. ad Rom. Iv. n. 10. t Vol. i. p. 450. 



ON THE PRIMACY. 201 

one who imitates his faith, since he also becomes 
as it were, a foundation of the Church, his 
example serving to support it, wherefore Am- 
brose adds: "If he cannot equal Peter, he can 
imitate him."* Such applications of the sacred 
text, which are common with the fathers, do not 
interfere with its literal meaning. Ambrose, in 
like manner, designates the faith of each one a 
rock, on which a spiritual edifice may be erected. 
"When he teaches, that "what is said to Peter, 
is said to the Apostles, "f he means that the 
power to bind and loose is given to them likewise. 
He is there arguing against the I^^Tovatians, who 
denied to the Church the power of pardoning 
very heinous offences, which he justly insists 
was given to all the Apostles. He also says, that 
the operation of the Divine Trinity is not con- 
fined to Peter, since all the Apostles share in 
the great work of instructing and sanctifying 
mankind. He looked on the labors and virtues 
of Paul as equal to those of Peter, although he 
distinctly recognizes his special privilege as the 
foundation of the Church: "Paul was not in- 
ferior to Peter, although he is the foundation of 
the Church ; the other is a skilful architect, who 
understands how to establish the steps of the 
nations who believe. "{ The other passage which 
you quote, as is your general practice, by re- 

* L. vi. Luc. c. ix. f Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii. 

J L. ii. de Sp. S. 



202 ON THE PRIMACY. 

ferring to the page and volume of a particular 
edition,* without specifying the work, is taken 
from a treatise on the Sacraments, which the 
learned critic Cellier denies to be the work of 
Ambrose. The sentiment it expresses is, how- 
ever, a just one. The author, who is certainly 
very ancient and orthodox, declares his wishes 
to follow in all things the Roman Church ; yet 
claims a right to adhere to a pious usage of the 
Church of Milan, although the same rite was not 
observed at Rome, namely the washing of the 
feet of the neophytes on their coming forth from 
the font: ""We know well that the Roman 
Church, whose example and pattern we desire 
to follow in all things, has not this usage. 
I wish to follow the Roman Church in all things ; 
yet we also as men have understanding, and 
therefore we are right in observing that which is 
elsewhere more properly practised. We follow 
the Apostle Peter himself; we imitate his de- 
votion. What does the Roman Church reply to 
this ? Peter, who was Bishop of the Roman 
Church, is our authority for this practice. Peter 
himself says : * Lord, not my feet only, but my 
hands and head likewise.' "f 

St. Jerom acknowledged Pope Damasus, the 
successor of St. Peter, to be the rock on which 
the Church was built, and implored his direction 
in regard to the terms to be used in speaking of 

* Op. Ed. Bened. torn. 2, p. 664, § 158. 
■[L. iii. de Sac. c. 1. 



ON THE PRIMACY. 203 

the mystery of the Trinity.* He recognized, 
indeed, each bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugu- 
bium, as having the same priesthood, hut he 
did not ascribe to them the same governing 
authority, which would be manifestly in oppo- 
sition to the testimony of all antiquity. He 
admits that the strength of the Church is con- 
solidated upon all the Apostles ; Peter, however, 
"being constituted head, that the occasion of 
schism may be taken away." Christ is called 
by him the foundation of the Church, laid by 
Paul the Apostle ; but Peter also is the founda- 
tion, his name being derived from Him. The 
passage which you quote, to show that bishops 
and priests were originally the same, may please 
the Presbyterians ; it does not help your cause 
as regards the Sovereign PontiiF. It may be 
plausibly employed to show that bishops are not 
of Divine institution, as perhaps you hold, since 
you regard them as not necessary for the being 
of the Church; but it does not interfere with 
the prerogative of the one great Apostle. 

It may be sufficient to observe with St. Au- 
gustin, that "in the Roman Church the prince- 
dom of the Apostolic chair always flourished, "f 
Instead of reciting anew passages from him and 
the other fathers, which you had already quoted 
in your former work, and I had explained in my 
reply, you should have shown that my explana- 

* Ep. XV. Damaso, t Ad Glorium et Eleusium, Ep. xliii. 



204 ON THE PRIMACY. 

tions were not satisfactory, and you should have 
strengthened your former conclusions by new 
authorities or arguments. But as you are pleased 
to ignore what I so fully treated, I must beg 
again to refer to my larger work on the Primacy, 
where all is set forth in great detail. 

Although you discover some commencement 
of Roman supremacy in the time of St. Cyprian, 
you date the origin of its appellate power from 
a decree of the Emperor Valentinian, A. D. 366. 
Yet the decree of the Council of Sardica, which 
recognized and regulated the proceedings in 
case of appeal, was prior to this date ; and even 
before this council, appeals were made and re- 
ceived by Pope Julius and others. You ob- 
serve, that if the right to receive them were 
divine, the imperial decree would have been un- 
necessary ; you must, however, perceive that it 
served to enforce the action of the ecclesiastical 
tribunal, by giving it a civil sanction. The 
first Council of Constantinople, in regulating 
the relations of diocesan bishops, made no en- 
actment regarding the Bishop of Pome; but 
undertook to invest the Bishop of Constanti- 
nople with privileges like those of the Roman 
Bishop, on account of the civil pre-eminence of 
the city. The words of the canon, as given by 
you, are : " The Bishop of Constantinople ought 
to have the primacy of honor with or after 
(Gr. iJ.£ra^ the Bishop of Rome, because that is 
the [N'ew Rome." Notwithstanding that you are 



ON THE PRIMACY. 205 

pained at small verbal criticisms, I must observe 
that tbe Greek preposition is determined to the 
latter signification, by the accusative case which 
follows it. The Council did not attempt to raise 
the Bishop of Constantinople to the rank of the 
Eoman Bishop, but desired to give him the 
second place in the hierarchy, which seemed to 
them to be due to the imperial city. In stating 
that the fathers had given privileges to Rome as 
the seat of empire, the Council did not insinuate 
that such had been their chief motive ; for they 
well knew that its power had been recognized 
under the Pagan emperors, and after it had 
ceased to be the capital. If it had originated 
from its civil greatness, it must have expired 
with the translation of the seat of empire. This 
council, in styling the See of Jerusalem the 
mother of all churches, had regard to its anti- 
quity, not to its authority. 

I am sorry to be obliged to charge you with 
a manifest misstatement of the proceedings at 
Chalcedon. You state truly, that the Papal 
Legates opposed the decree ; and you represent 
Paschasius one of them as detected in the attempt 
to support it, by the fraudulent interpolation of 
the Mcene Canon, which he began in these 
words : " The Roman Church hath always had 
the Primacy." " The attempted fraud," you 
say, "was detected, and the true meaning given, 
which had no such words. The decree was 
accordingly confirmed in favor of the Church of 
18 



206 ON THE PRIMACY. 

Constantinople ; and we may readily imagine 
tlie expressions of indignation and contempt 
with, which the impudent forgery was branded 
by the fathers."* This statement is altogether 
at variance with the facts. The privileges of 
the See of Eome were not at all called in ques- 
tion ; but as the first Council of Constantinople, 
eighty years before, had framed a decree, giv- 
ing to the bishop of that city the second place 
in the hierarchy, and the Oriental bishops 
at Chalcedon, in the preceding session, held in 
the absence of the legates, had confirmed it, 
omitting even some restrictions, which had been 
inserted by the fathers of Constantinople, to 
save, to some extent, the ancient prerogatives 
of Antioch and Alexandria, the legates com- 
plained of this proceeding, and desired that it 
should be reversed, as contrary to the Mcene 
Canon. The judges in the Council, who were 
civil officers charged with the maintenance of 
order, demanded that the legates and the friends 
of the See of Constantinople, should produce the 
canons ; whereupon the Legate Paschasius read 
the sixth canon of Mce, beginning with the 
words above stated. A secretary of the Council 
was famished with another copy by the arch- 
deacon of the Church of Constantinople, which 
he accordingly read, without those prefatory 
words. No observation whatever was made as 

* Vol. i. p. 464. 



ON THE PRIMACY. 207 

to the apparent discrepancy, because no ques- 
tion was raised as to the primacy of Rome. 
The only inquiry made by the judges was, whe- 
ther the bishops had acted, in the preceding 
session, free from all restraint ; which being 
affirmed by them, the judges pronounced sen- 
tence in these words : " From what has been 
done, and from the attestation given by each 
one, we consider, that before all, the primacy 
and eminent honor should be preserved, accord- 
ing to the canons, to the most beloved of God, 
archbishop of ancient Rome; but that it is 
proper that the most holy archbishop of the im- 
perial city of Constantinople, the new Rome, 
should enjoy the same privileges of honor after 
him, and that he should have full power to 
ordain the metropolitans of Asia, Pontus, and 
Thrace."* From the very terms of this decree, 
it may be inferred that the reading of the canon 
by the Legate was approved of, since the veiy 
term ra r.p(h-zia is used in both places ; and the 
latter is professedly grounded on previous ca- 
nons. So far, then, from any charge of fraud 
being advanced, there is the strongest presump- 
tion that the reading was recognized as au- 
thentic. There is full evidence that no objection 
was raised, no question entertained as to the 
Roman primacy, which, on the contrary, was 
formally avowed. The great desire of the Eastern 

* Cone. vol. ii. p. 642. 



208 ON THE PRIMACY. 

fathers was to give the imperial city like privi- 
leges, which they express by a different term : 
rwv aoTiDv r.pia^zni)^>. These, although sometimes 
called equal Ttwv, were only such as were suitable 
to patriarchs, and were limited chiefly to three 
provinces. The opposition of the legates was 
owing to the instructions of the Pope, who was 
aware that an effort of the kind was likely to be 
made, which he ordered them to resist. The 
influence of the court was suflicient to induce 
the Oriental bishops to yield to the ambition of 
its favorite, the bishop of the capital ; but no- 
thing could move the Pontiff, who, deaf to the 
entreaties of the bishops, the emperor and the 
empress, by the authority of the Blessed Peter, 
annulled the canon, as an infraction of the 
order of the hierarchy, recognized by the first 
General Council. Your readers, Right Reverend 
Sir, may have been easily led by your insinua- 
tions, to imagine that expressions " of indigna- 
tion and contempt" were uttered by the fathers; 
but there is no ground whatever for thinking 
so. They respectively sought to gain the assent 
of the legates to the measure, by showing that 
it was not wrung from the bishops, but willingly 
yielded for the honor of the Bishop of the im- 
perial city. ]^o forgery — no interpolation what- 
ever, was alleged. The Roman primacy was 
distinctly acknowledged, not merely on the 
ground of the civil pre-eminence which Rome 
had once enjoyed, as insinuated in the decree. 



ON THE PRIMACY. 209 

but because "the care of the vineyard was in- 
trusted by our Lord to Leo in the person of 
Peter," as the fathers distinctly state in their 
letter to the Pontiff. Could you discover in 
Dr. Milner any similar misstatement, you would 
have reason to reproach him, as you most un- 
warrantably do elsewhere, with " dishonest in- 
sinuation, gross deception, and unmeasured 
reliance on the prejudices of his hearers." 

The effort which you have made to revive the 
exploded tale of the Popess Joan, deserves the 
praise of ingenuity, though not of good judg- 
ment or candor. The disgusting details into 
which you enter so minutely, shall not be handled 
by me, for I have no fears that the succession 
will, on this account, be called in question, 
whilst Bayle, Gibbon, and Blondell, with the 
host of writers of the present day, reject the ab- 
surd story, which is disproved by known facts 
and dates. Besides, as the English bishops, 
at the time of the alleged intrusion of a Popess, 
about the middle of the ninth century, and for 
nearly seven hundred years afterwards, were in 
communion with Rome, and derived their juris- 
diction from it, nothing can weaken the suc- 
cession without involving your claims in still 
greater uncertainty. The learned Bishop Beve- 
ridge felt this, when he observed : "We do not 
deny that the apostolical succession hath been 
continued in the Church of Eome."* This re- 

* Serm. 1, Christ's presence with His ministers, p. 24, vol. i. 
18* 



210 ON THE PRIMACY. 

flection should have made you pause, before as- 
serting that the Pope is Antichrist, since you ne- 
cessarily derive under him, if at all. Grotius 
lamented that any Protestants should have 
broached this impiety. That you should adopt 
it, betrays a desperate resolution to overturn the 
Papal chair at any hazard; but there it stands in its 
loffcy position. Whilst men, frenzied by passion, 
gnash their teeth and blaspheme, the alleged 
Antichrist repeats forever the divinely inspired 
profession of Peter: " Thou art Christ, the Son 
of the living God." He proclaims at all times 
the mandate of the Father, that at the name of 
Jesus all should bow in homage — those who are 
in heaven, on earth, or in the lowest depths of 
hell. 

Your ingenuity discovers "a trick" and "a bold 
scheme of pious fraud attempted in the service 
of Papal ambition," in the proceedings in regard 
to appeals to the Holy See from the African 
clergy, in the early part of the fifth century. 
Apiarius, a priest, excommunicated by Urban, 
Bishop of Sicca, appealed to Pope Zosimus, who 
soon despatched two priests, as his legates, with 
powers to restore the appellant, excommunicate 
the Bishop if he refused to submit to their de- 
cision, and regulate all appeals for the future in 
accordance with the Mcene Canons. It is now 
certain that the canons thus referred to were not 
enacted at Mce, but in a council held at Sardica, 
some twenty years after that of IvTice; yet at 



ON THE PRIMACY. 211 

Rome they were called Nicene, and were con- 
tained in the same volume with those of Mce, 
as even the Jansenist Quesnel confessed on in- 
spection of a very ancient Vatican manuscript. 
As the interval between the two councils was so 
small, and many of the same prelates were pre- 
sent at both, it easily happened that the canons 
of Sardica were regarded as a sequel and supple- 
ment to those of Nice. Innocent I., the prede- 
cessor of Zosimus, often refers to them under 
this appellation. In Africa, however, they were 
wholly unknown, and the fathers therefore hesi- 
tated to adopt them as a permanent basis of ac- 
tion until their authenticity should be ascertained 
by special messengers sent to examine the ar- 
chives of the great churches of Alexandria, An- 
tioch, and Constantinople. Their report was un- 
favorable, inasmuch as the canons were not found 
in those churches, so that the Council expostu- 
lated respectfully with the Pontiff, and prayed 
him not to lend a ready ear to the complaints 
of clergymen refractory to the authority of their 
immediate superiors. On these facts you build 
your charges of trickery and fraud, although the 
canons are now universally acknowledged to 
have been enacted at Sardica, and consequently 
to have the same weight and authority as if they 
had proceeded from the Mcene fathers. A mere 
misnomer is the only pretext for so grave an ac- 
cusation. The African fathers showed the most 
marked deference for the Papal authority, since 



212 ON THE PRIMACY. 

they submitted to it at once in the case in ques- 
tion ; and on the report apparently adverse to 
their authenticity, they limited themselves to re- 
spectful remonstrance and entreaty. 

What you regard as an impious fraud of Pope 
Stephen, was certainly no more than a rhetorical 
fiction, which Pepin must have perfectly under- 
stood, when the letter in the name of St. Peter 
the Apostle, urging him to come to the relief of 
Eome, his favored city, was sent to him by the 
Pontiff. It is incredible that even in the eighth 
century, or in any other age, however credulous, 
a prince so distinguished could have been im- 
posed on by a fraud so destitute of probability. 

The scandals given by certain occupants of the 
Papal chair, are a fruitful theme of reproach, on 
which you delight to expatiate ; yet if we con- 
sider the turbulence of the times, the total disor- 
ganization of society, the temporary ascendency 
obtained at Rome by some petty potentates, the 
national partialities which favored some intru- 
ders, through jealousy of German influence, we 
shall not be astonished that in the tenth and 
eleventh centuries some instances occurred of 
wicked and ambitious men, who seized on the 
reins of government. Few, very few, were those 
who deserved to be marked with the brand of 
infamy. Towards the close of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, and in the early part of the sixteenth, two 
or three Pontiffs appeared with the evidences of 
early frailty near their persons ; and it must be 



ON THE PRIMACY. 213 

avowed that they scarcely atoned for it by fervor 
and devotedness, one perhaps excepted. Of Al- 
exander VI. few have ventured to speak, even in 
extenuation of censure; but, although I feel 
convinced that his vices have been exaggerated, 
and that crimes have been laid to his charge 
without any just grounds, still I have no plea to 
offer for his licentiousness, first indulged, it is 
said, when a young ofilcer of the army, but con- 
tinued, I doubt not, under the mantle of the 
Roman purple, and shamelessly avowed, when 
he sat on high, in that chair, whose occupant is 
styled " Holiness," to remind him of the sanctity 
which becomes his station. 

The character of several Popes has suffered 
unjustly from the interested misrepresentations 
of rivals, or their partisans, as also of the adhe- 
rents of schismatical emperors and kings. 'Na- 
tional jealousies led the Italians to satirize the 
French popes who sat at Avignon, while the 
French viewed with no partiality several who sat 
at Rome. The civil relations of the Pontiff to 
his subjects have often cast odium on the exer- 
cise of his ecclesiastical authority, and his poli- 
tical associations with various princes have con- 
tributed in no slight degree to excite the rancor, 
and provoke the animadversions of writers of 
other nations. Certain historians assume the air 
of candor, by reciting the very words of some 
contemporary, who has recorded his view of the 
personal character, or public acts of an indivi- 



214 ON THE PRIMACY. 

dual Pope, without reflecting that lie may have 
mistaken rumors for facts, and followed the bias 
of partisanship to the prejudice of truth and jus- 
tice. I feel it unnecessary to enter into a de- 
tailed vindication of the various pontifis, whose 
character is more generally the object of attack ; 
but I fearlessly say, that considering the long 
succession of Popes, the convulsions of society, 
the vicissitudes of Rome, and the endless variety 
of circumstances in which the Popes have been 
placed, it is nothing short of a miracle that, in 
general, their character has been pure and ex- 
alted, whilst their succession has been inviolably 
maintained. I take leave, then. Right Reverend 
Sir, to remind you of the course of argument 
pursued by St. Augustin, when Petilian, the 
Donatist, made light of the boast of Catholics, 
that they enjoyed the communion of the See of 
Peter, which he impiously called the chair of 
pestilence, unfit for saints to occupy. St. Au- 
gustin replied to the insult : " Do you not 
feel that this is not argument, but wanton 
contumely ? You make this allegation without 
proving it ; and if even you proved it as to some 
individuals, you could not, on their account, 
prejudice the claims of others. ISTevertheless, if 
all throughout the world were such as you most 
wantonly charge, what has the chair of the Ro- 
man Church done to you — in which Peter sat, 
and Anastasius sits at present ? or the chair of 
the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat. 



ON THE PRIMACY. 215 

and in which at this day John is sitting, with 
which we are connected in Catholic unity, and 
from which you are separated in wicked frenzy ? 
Why do you call the apostolic chair a chair of 
pestilence ? If it be on account of the men who 
you suppose propound the law without fulfilling 
it, did the Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the 
Pharisees, of whom He said, * They say, and 
do not,' dishonor, in anyway, the chair on which 
they sat ? Did he not commend that chair of 
Moses, and rebuke them without prejudice to the 
chair ? For He says, ' They sit on the chair of 
Moses ; the things which they say, do ye ; but 
do not the things which they do ; for they say 
and do not.' If you would reflect on these 
things, you would not dishonor the apostolic 
chair, whose communion you have not, on ac- 
count of the men whom you slander. But what 
else is this, unless to show oneself at a loss for 
something to say, and yet to be able to utter 
nothing but contumely ?"* 

Boniface "Viii. may fairly be given as an 
instance of the injustice which some Popes 
have suffered from the partisans of crowned 
heads. His learning and talent are unques- 
tionable ; but his bold resistance to Philip 
the Fair, in his aggression on the rights of the 
clergy, and in the oppression of his subjects, 
exposed him to the royal resentment. To re- 

* Contra lit. Petilian. 1. ii, n. 1 18. 



216 ON THE PRIMACY. 

lieve the king from the shame and odium of his 
maltreatment of the Pontiif, who died in conse- 
quence of it, it was reported by the king's adhe- 
rents, that Boniface was an atheist, and that 
after his humiliation, he had yielded to despair. 
Happily for the cause of truth, his body, after 
three hundred years' repose, being identified, was 
found in an admirable state of preservation, as if 
Heaven would signify its approval of a faithful 
and virtuous prelate. The process against his 
memory proved a failure, and the General 
Council of Yienne, not long after his death, pro- 
nounced him orthodox. You, nevertheless, 
reopen the cause, produce anew the witnesses, 
whose testimony was rejected as perjured, or 
irrelevant, and after a mock trial find him guilty 
of atheism and infidelity. This is more ridicu- 
lous than painful, especially since you patheti- 
cally expatiate on the awful condition of the 
Roman Church at that period, inasmuch as a 
Cardinal and a Pope "both were downright 
atheists."* The name of the Cardinal which 
you give, is Cajetan; the- Pope, Boniface — ^who 
were one and the same person. This curious 
blunder is repeated several times with the like 
expressions of horror and commiseration ! 

* Vol. i. p. 142, 144, 339. 



LETTER XVII. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

YOU count for nothing Dr. Milner's dis- 
claimer of any civil or temporal supremacy 
in the Pope, by which he can depose princes ; 
and you make light of the oath of the English 
and Irish Catholics, hothprelates and people, who 
deny that " he hath, or ought to have any tem- 
poral or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or 
pre-eminence, directly, or indirectly, within the 
realm." This you consider to be "ingeniously 
worded to gull the British Parliament," and you 
avow that " this is a kind of jurisdiction which 
was never demanded by the highest advocate of 
Ultramontanism." I thank you for this avowal, 
which is calculated to remove some of the odium 
which has been cast on the views of certain 
divines, who favored the opinion, which has 
long ceased to be advocated even in Rome itself. 
I never before suspected that the British Parlia- 
ment, with Pitt at its head, was altogether gulli- 
ble. It is clear that if you had been there to 
enlighten them, the Catholics would still remain 
unemancipated. 

19 



218 TEMPORAL POWER. 

You will scarcely venture to deny, tliat there 
are circumstances in wliich the riglits of sove- 
reigns over their subjects cease, in consequence 
of the enormous abuse of power. In such cases, 
when the European nations were generally 
Catholic, the Pope was looked up to, as the 
proper authority to declare this forfeiture. By 
the force of circumstances these nations coalesced 
into a federal alliance, or republic, of which he 
was the acknowledged head. You deny this, 
which, however, is affirmed not only by Voltaire, 
but by our own jurists, Kent, Wheaton, and 
other respectable authorities. Voltaire expressly 
says : " The nations belonging to the Eoman 
communion appeared to be one great republic."* 
Chancellor Kent, speaking of the middle ages, 
observes : " The Church had its councils or con- 
vocations of the clergy, which formed the nations 
professing Christianity into a connection re- 
sembling a federal alliance, and those councils 
sometimes settled the titles and claims of princes, 
and regulated the temporal affairs of the Chris- 
tian powers. The confederacy of the Christian 
nations was bound together by a sense of com- 
mon duty and interest in respect to the rest of 
mankind. "t Wheaton says, that " during the 
middle ages, the Christian States of Europe 
began to unite and to acknowledge the obliga- 
tion of an international law common to all those 

* Essai snr I'Histoire Generale, t. ii. ch. xlviii. 
t Commentaries on American Law, by James Kent, New 
York, 1836, part i. lect. i. p. 9, 10. 



TEMPORAL POWER. 219 

who professed the same religious faith."* This 
sufficiently accounts for the interposition of the 
Pope in regard to Sovereigns, apart from posi- 
tive and formal concessions. The recognition 
of the Christian religion as the supreme rule of 
all the members of this confederacy, naturally 
led to appeal to the judgment of the Pontiff, in 
cases where the relative rights of princes in 
regard to one another, or their rights over 
their subjects, were in question. When the 
obligation of an oath was to be defined, he 
was considered most competent to declare how 
far it extended, and his declaration was accepted 
as a safe guide to delicate consciences. You 
deny that he only interfered upon the applica- 
tion of the people ; yet it is certain that in the 
very first instance on record, the Saxons had 
appealed to Alexander 11., the predecessor of 
Gregory VII., and to this PontifiT himself against 
the tyranny of Henry, long before the sentence 
of deposition was pronounced. " The Pope," 
you say, " claimed that his office invested him 
with the sovereignty of the world, as the Yicar 
of Christ, by the divine decree, and not by the 
will of princes or people." I have never met 
with any proof of such pretensions. Gregory 
repeatedly acknowledged that Henry was placed 
by Divine Providence in the pinnacle of power, f 

* Elements of International Law, Pref. to third edition. 
f "Tibi, quem Deus in summo culmine rerum posuit." A pud 
Voigt, vol. i. p. 410 ; vol. ii. p. 57. 



220 TEMPORAL POWER. 

He, indeed, claimed and exercised the power of 
deposing the prince, who, he alleged, "was 
guilty of crimes so enormous as to deserve not 
only to be excommunicated, but according to 
all divine and human laws, to be deprived of 
the royal dignity." The Saxons had, in fact, 
already unanimously declared him dethroned 
for his crimes, and chosen Rudolph of Suabia to 
reign in his stead, in a meeting held 1073, at 
Gerstungen, after three days' deliberation ; and 
although this measure did not take effect, and 
they were forced by the fortune of war to submit 
to his domination, they appealed anew in 1076 
to Gregory, as the only one who could check his 
tyranny and cruelty. As he had not been 
crowned Emperor, they besought the Pope to 
exercise his power by setting aside the claims of 
Henry. In passing the sentence, Gregory ap- 
pealed to the words of Christ, empowering Peter 
to loose and to bind, because his act was spe- 
cially directed to the releasing of the people from 
the oath of allegiance; but from the previous 
allegations of crime and unworthiness, it is 
manifest that he relied on these for his justifica- 
tion. His authority had been invoked by both 
parties, and he exercised it, determining by his 
judgment the extent of the obligations of con- 
science in their mutual relations sanctioned by 
oath. The fathers of American Independence 
declared the oath of allegiance taken to the 



TEMPORAL POWER. 221 

British King, to be no longer binding, and 
mthout any pretensions to authority, they de- 
clared the people absolved from it, relying solely 
on the fact, that the correlative duty of protec- 
tion and just government had been manifestly 
violated. The Pope grounded his sentence on 
far more flagrant abuses of power than are 
alleged in the Declaration of Independence. 
The difference between the middle ages and the 
present age is not in the principle, that the 
abuse of power causes its forfeiture, which is still 
maintained ; or in the idea that the Church can 
interfere with the just exercise of civil authority, 
which was never asserted. Gregory himself 
says : " What regards the service and allegiance 
due to the king, we by no means wish to oppose 
or impede."* It lies in this, that a religious 
sanction was then given to the natural duty of 
allegiance, and was sought for the exercise of 
natural right in resisting oppression ; whilst now 
men act on their own sense of right. The fact 
that the nations owed their civilization to the 
influence of religion, accounts for the difference. 
You are mistaken in asserting that "it was 
simply a struggle between the Pope and the 
Emperor for the right of investiture." This was 
doubtless a highly important matter, intimately 
connected with the purity of the prelacy, and 
involving great civil consequences, but the docu- 

* Ep. V. 5, quoted in Vie de Gregoire VII. vol. ii. p. 253, note 
du traducteur. 

19* 



222 TEMPORAL POWER. 

ments prove tliat unbridled licentiousness and 
wanton tyranny concurred to call forth, the cen- 
sures of the Pontiff. 

The Bull of St. Pius V. deposing Elizabeth, 
shows that he shared the views of former Pontiffs 
in regard to his power. The old principle of 
English law, which made the maintenance of- 
the Catholic faith a condition for holding the 
crown, as the profession of Protestantism is at 
present, was considered to be still in force, since 
her immediate predecessor had restored England 
to the communion of the Holy See. She is 
throughout styled " the pretended queen of En- 
gland," because her right to the throne was re- 
garded as null, on account of her illegitimacy, 
which stood declared on the statute book. Yet 
the plenary authority which the Pontiff claimed, 
regarded the government of the Church ; and in 
this sense only does he allege that Christ made 
Peter prince over all people and kingdoms, 
" that he may preserve his faithful people in the 
unity of the spirit." The terms "to pluck up, to 
destroy, to scatter, to consume," which are bor- 
rowed from the Prophet Jeremiah, regard all 
acts of spiritual authority directed to extirpate 
error and vice. Doubtless Pius believed that in 
declaring Elizabeth a pretendant, and directing 
her pretensions to be disregarded, he was but 
stating authoritatively what the facts of the case 
warranted ; for even he did not claim an absolute 
and arbitrary right to interfere in matters of this 



TEMPORAL POWER. 223 

nature. Elizabeth, however, had possession of 
the throne, and succeeded in retaining it during 
a long reign, despite of his sentence. His act or 
views cannot prove what are the sentiments now 
generally entertained by Catholics ; for if, as you 
acknowledge, the English Catholics continued 
to obey Elizabeth notwithstanding her deposi- 
tion, and the martyred Campion on the scaffold 
proclaimed her queen, it may w^ell be presumed 
that Catholics, at this day, are equally disposed 
to practise allegiance to their rulers. Sixtus V. 
was the last Pope who attempted to exercise 
this power, by renewing the sentence against 
Elizabeth, and issuing a similar one against the 
King of l^avarre. More than two centuries have 
passed away, without any similar effort ; for Pius 
Vn., to wholn you refer, only deprived I^apoleon 
of the communion of the Church ; which was 
certainly an exercise of spiritual authority. 
What you allege of his having absolved all 
Frenchmen from their obedience to Louis 
Xym., was a simple recognition of the existing 
government of Napoleon, in which the nation 
had already acquiesced. "When, in his Bull 
excommunicating the Emperor, he speaks of his 
own sceptre, he means his spiritual authority, 
which in its nature is far superior to that which 
is temporal, as Divine things are to human. . In 
negotiations with the Emperor, he made no 
difficulty, in regard to that article of the De- 



224 TEMPORAL POWER. 

claration, which affirms the independence of 
the civil power, although he was inflexibly 
opposed to the four Articles collectively, as his 
predecessors had been, as emanating from an 
assembly under the royal influence, and as a 
premature attempt to determine points, not yet 
decided by the supreme authority of the Church. 
You assert that the Pope, " as the sole vicar of 
Christ, that paramount master of the world, 
claims, in his own person, the authority of God, 
and saith, 'Bt/ me kings reign, and princes exe- 
cute judgment.' "* The manner of introducing 
this text,f and the use of italics, naturally convey 
the idea that the Pope applies these words to 
himself, in order to express his supreme power 
over princes ; yet I have never met with any such 
application of it, and until you produce or refer 
to the document, I must regard it as your inge- 
nious device. I find that St. Gregory VII., 
writing to Harold, King of Denmark, exhorts 
him to govern with justice and wisdom, adding 
" that of thee, the true Wisdom, which is God, 
may say: 'By me doth this king reign.' " You 
blame Dr. Milner for not giving the* various 
views of divines on this subject. I believe there 
is no real difference at this day, for I do not 
know that the most devoted to the Holy See, 
claim for it any right of interference in secular 
concerns in the actual state of society ; whilst I 

* Vol. ii. p. 389. t Pi-ov. viii. 15. 



TEMPORAL POWER. 225 

am persuaded that tliere is a very general dispo- 
sition to regard the acts of former Popes, during 
the middle ages, as fully justified by the princi- 
ples of jurisprudence then prevailing, and by the 
general consent of princes and nations, and as 
faught with great benefits to society. 

Mr. Brownson, with his usual independence, 
has ventured to seek the solution of the pro- 
blems presented by the history of the middle 
ages, in a principle which was put forward by 
St. Gregory YII., and by the great defender of 
the indirect power, Bellarmin. He relies on 
the natural subordination of the temporal to the 
spiritual. As far as the middle ages are con- 
cerned, I conceive that this is satisfactory, be- 
cause, in fact, that principle was then admitted 
and applied, and thus it necessarily entered into 
the compact between sovereigns and their sub- 
jects. The prince, at his coronation, swore to 
maintain the rights and privileges of the Church, 
of which he was the acknowledged protector, 
and the people regarded his fidelity to this trust 
as his most solemn duty. When he became a 
persecutor of religion, he violated the first con- 
dition on which he reigned, and exposed him- 
self to ecclesiastical censures, which, by general 
law, were followed by the forfeiture of civil 
rights, if not removed within a year. If Queen 
Victoria were to profess the Catholic faith, you 
know. Eight Reverend Sir, that she would forfeit 
her throne, because she is sworn to support the 



226 TEMPORAL POWER. 

Church as by law established. Her Protestant 
subjects would at once feel themselves released 
from their allegiance, as soon as her profession 
of Catholicity was placed beyond doubt. Can 
it be a matter of surprise, that Catholic nations 
exacted from their rulers a pledge to maintain 
their religion, and the rights of the Church, 
and made it a prominent article in the Great 
Charter of their rights and liberties? Those 
who approve of the English Bill of Rights, and 
Act of Settlement, cannot consistently condemn 
the policy of the nations generally in the middle 
ages, or wonder that when the coronation-oath 
was flagrantly violated, the oath of allegiance 
was declared no longer obligatory. The decla- 
ration of the Pope served rather to prevent the 
breach of allegiance, on grounds not sufficiently 
weighty to dissolve the obligation. This, how- 
ever, does not concern us in the United States, 
since by the General Constitution there is no 
state-religion, and the Constitutions of the re- 
spective States guarantee liberty of conscience. 
The effort which is now made by a formidable 
party, to disturb these amicable relations, can 
derive no coloring or pretext from a theory, ap- 
plicable only to the confederacy of Catholic 
nations as it subsisted in former ages, and 
which, after all, is only the speculation of an 
individual as to the causes of these historical 
phenomena. Although I addressed this distin- 
guished publicist, in 1846, in terms of high com- 



TEMPORAL POWER. 227 

mendation of Ms zeal and ability in defence of 
the Catholic faith, which he had embraced but 
two years before, and the other bishops con- 
curred with me, none of us thought of render- 
ing ourselves responsible for whatever views he 
might afterwards entertain, as he himself has 
recently avowed most distinctly, to correct the 
abuse made of our signatures, which are repre- 
sented as implying an unqualified endorsement 
of all his sentiments.* Most assuredly I dissent 
from him, if he claim for the Pope any right to 
interfere with our civil allegiance. With his 
full knowledge and entire approval. Catholics 
everywhere pledge and render it to the Govern- 
ment under which they live ; knowing that it is 
a duty independent of all ecclesiastical sanction. 
However strong may be the language sometimes 
employed by Mr. Brownson, I am convinced 
that he does not mean any such thing, and that 
he, as well as every other Catholic in the States, 
in the hour of trial will be found the devoted 
supporter of our National and State institutions. 
Dr. l^evin acknowledges the advantages of 
the power exercised by the Popes in the middle 
ages : " The barbarians bowed to the authority 
of this power, as the only one that carried in it 
any principle of order, or that offered any pro- 
mise of stability. "Where all was chaos, there 
could be properly no usurpation. The right to 

^ Church Review, April, 1855. 



228 TEMPORAL POWER. 

rule fell where there was ability to rule. It is 
dishonest to try such times by the standard of 
a settled and well-ordered social state. The 
powxr to regenerate society, in the middle ages, 
lay wholly in the Church. On her devolved 
accordingly, as by Divine commission, the sove- 
reign care of society and the duty of training it 
for its proper destiny."* 

* Mercersburg Review, March, 1851, art. Modern Civilization. 



LETTER XVIII. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

TlEiN letters of your first volume, filling above 
two hundred pages, contain a summary of 
events wMcli occurred from the commencement 
of the Church down to the time of the so-called 
Reformation. With the view of justifying this 
revolt on the plea of enormous corruption among 
the rulers of the Church and her clergy gene- 
rally, you have gathered together all the scan- 
dals and disorders of which you could find traces 
in history. Fleury has given you the chief ma- 
terials. His testimony you hold to be conclusive 
against Catholics, as he himself was a Catholic ; 
but this circumstance does not give weight to 
his statements beyond what the documents, on 
which he relies, demand. It is, however, un- 
necessary to examine the facts in detail, since, 
even allowing disorders to have been as general 
and as enormous as he has painted them, they 
can furnish no argument against a Divine insti- 
tution, whose Founder warned His followers 
that scandals must come, and pronounced woe to 

20 



230 ON ABUSES. 

the world because of scandals. These cannot 
justify revolt against authority, which is neces- 
sarily grounded not on the personal merits of 
those who exercise it, but on the will of Christ, 
who imparted it. St. Augustin admonishes us : 
" "When, either through the neglect of prelates, 
or by some necessity, or through unknown 
causes, we find that wicked persons are in the 
Church, whom we cannot correct or restrain by 
ecclesiastical discipline, let not the impious and 
destructive presumption enter our heart that we 
should imagine ourselves obliged to separate 
from them."* 

All scandals and excesses should be put to the 
charge of human frailty and perversity. The 
authority of the Church rests on the commission 
given by Christ, which is unqualified and perpe- 
tual. I must claim the right to apply here a reflec- 
tion suggested by Butler, the learned author of the 
Analogy, as an answer to the same objection 
urged by unbelievers against the Christian reli- 
gion : "It may, indeed, I think truly be said, 
that the good effects of Christianity have not been 
small, nor its supposed ill effects, any effects at 
all of it, properly speaking. Perhaps, too, the 
things themselves done have been aggravated ; 
and if not, Christianity hath been often only a 
pretence, and the same evils, in the main, would 
have been done,upou some other pretence. How- 
ever great and shocking as the corruptions and 

* S. Aug. 1. de fide et operibus, c. v. 



ON ABUSES. 231 

abuses of it have really been, tbey cannot be in- 
sisted upon as arguments against it, upon prin- 
ciples of theism. For one cannot proceed one 
step in reasoning upon natural religion any more 
than upon Christianity, without laying it down 
as a first principle, that the dispensations of Pro- 
vidence are not to be judged of by their perver- 
sions, but by their genuine tendencies ; not by 
what they do actually seem to efiect, but what 
they would effect, if mankind did their part — 
that part which is justly put and left upon 
them."* 

The prevalence of concubinage among the 
clergy in some countries and some ages is a me- 
lancholy evidence of human weakness, and of 
the want of vigilance and zeal on the part of the 
prelates of the Church, some of whom gave the 
most scandalous examples. Yet we must take 
into consideration that what is branded as con- 
cubinage by St. Peter Damiani, and other stre- 
nuous advocates of Church discipline, was re- 
garded by many as a state of wedlock ;t the 
marriage, although originally unlawful, being re- 
garded by many as valid. Cranmer is, there- 
fore, said to have been twice married^ in violation 
of his collegiate and priestly obligations. You 
can scarcely reject this plea, which at the time 
was put forward by the priests, and supported by 

■^ The Analogy of Religion, by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Dur- 
ham ; part ii. ch. i. 

t See Vie et Pontificat du Pape Gregoire VII. par J. Voight, 
traduite par I'Abbe Jager, vol. i p. 143. 



232 ON ABUSES. 

jurists, on whicli account the eiForts of various 
Popes to re-establish the ancient discipline, met 
with strong opposition. Viewed in this light, 
the relaxed state of clerical morals loses much of 
its revolting character, since it implies no more 
than the freedom of marriage, which ministers 
of every sect now enjoy. The Popes, however, 
especially Gregory, resisted the attempt to le- 
galize the union, employed the censures of the 
Church, invoked the aid of the civil authorities, 
and even enlisted the zeal of the laity, generally, 
to break up the usage, destroy all appearance of 
prescription against the law of celibacy, and en- 
force the canonical observance. It would be a 
great mistake to suppose that at any time, or in 
any country, vice was so far dominant, as to 
leave the Church without worthy priests to mi- 
nister at her altars. In the worst of times there 
were illustrious examples of purity and perfection 
in the sanctuary and in the cloister ; and often 
when discipline became relaxed in a particular 
country, it was in a flourishing condition in other 
portions of the Church. Wars, civil dissensions, 
the intrusion, by emperors and kings, of their 
courtiers and dependents, into seats of authority, 
and the general degradation and partial barba- 
rism which prevailed from various causes, con- 
curred to produce relaxation ; but there was 
still remaining a deep sense of the holiness that 
became the priesthood, and a reforming power, 
which finally raised them from the depth into 
which they had sunk. Had the Popes yielded 



ON ABUSES. 233 

in despair to the overwhelming torrent, and le- 
galized these disorders by their positive sanction, 
History would not have had to record crimes so 
revolting ; but neither would she have inscribed 
on her pages the brilliant virtues and glorious 
achievements of the apostolic men, who at all 
times shed lustre on the Church. The English 
schism was not, in the first instance, directed 
against clerical celibacy, on the contrary, Henry 
Vni. was entirely opposed to the marriage of 
the clergy, which was expressly proscribed in 
one of his six articles ; and Elizabeth viewed it 
with no favor. In her reign it was regarded as 
illegal, so that Parker and others sought letters 
of legitimation for their children. In the dio- 
cess of Bangor, for some years after her acces- 
sion, it was usual for the clergy to pay the bishop 
for a license to keep a concubine !* Elizabeth, 
of her own authority, suspended Fletcher, Bishop 
of London, only for marrying " a fine lady, and a 
widow, "t 

Married clergymen are less exposed to sus- 
picion and censure than the professors of celibacy, 
but not less liable to temptation, whilst they are 
scarcely qualified to perform the high duties of 
the Christian priesthood. Due regard to the 
temporal interests and safety of their families, 
prevents them from making the heroic sacrifices, 
which at all times, but especially in seasons of 

* Strype's Whitgift, p. 458. t Strype's Parker, p. 203. 

20* 



234 ONABUSES. 

danger and distress, are expected from the mi- 
nisters of Christ. It is not wonderful that they 
abandon the confessional, and deny the daily 
sacrifice, for they cannot hope to possess the con- 
fidence of the bruised heart, and they dare not 
consecrate the Body which is from the Virgin. 
Pestilence scares them from the couch of the 
dying, to whom they have no mystic unction to 
afiford. In their habits, views, and pursuits, they 
are like other men, only careful to observe cer- 
tain rules of decorum suitable to their peculiar 
station, "When will they produce an Apostle 
like Xavier, a benefactor of humanity such as 
Vincent of Paul, a martyr of zeal like Borromeo? 

In regard to all the disorders and crimes which 
history attests, I have only to say with St. Au- 
gustin: " The Church is not defiled by the sins 
of men, since being spread throughout the whole 
world, according to the most faithful prophecies, 
she awaits the end of the world, as the shore, on 
reaching which she is at length rid of the bad 
fish, which being contained within the nets of 
the Lord, she bore their annoyance without 
fault, as long as she could not rid herself of them 
without impatience."* 

Simony is one of those vices against which 
St. Gregory VII., St. Peter Damiani, and other 
holy prelates, inveighed with great earnestness, 
employing all their power and influence for its 

* Contra Petil. 1. iii. n. 43. 



ON ABUSES. 235 

extirpation. It chiefly regarded bishoprics, ab- 
beys, and benefices in general, which, as they 
had revenues attached to them, the Emperor 
granted to his favorites on the payment of a 
large sum to the royal treasury. By this means 
the wealthy and the ambitious occupied seats of 
honor in the Church, without possessing the vir- 
tues which should adorn her ministers. It was, 
indeed, a great source of scandal and disorder. 
Yet the Church of England does not view with 
such horror, certain practices which bear a close 
resemblance to it, such as the purchase of livings; 
advertisements for their sale, setting forth the 
revenue and other advantages, being frequent in 
the public papers. The opposition of the Popes 
to the practice of investiture, by the delivery of 
ring and crozier, arose partly from its connection 
with simoniacal traffic of this kind, and partly 
from the apparent communication of spiritual 
power by these symbols. There would have 
been little occasion for the inflamed invectives 
of holy men, if the standard of clerical morals 
had been reduced to the present level of the 
Church of England. Livings might have been 
sold, without a suspicion of simony; marriage 
might have thrown its mantle over human frailty ; 
and kings or their ministers might have bestowed 
sacred offices, without appearing to trespass on 
hallowed ground. 

The military character which attached to some 
bishops of the middle ages, cannot fairly be 



236 ON ABUSES. 

judged of, without taking into consideration 
their social position, and the general spirit of 
the age. Under the feudal system many of them 
had secular attributions, having vassals depen- 
dent on them. The warlike spirit of the North- 
men, who had overspread the southern portions 
of Europe, had descended to their children, not 
wholly divested of its ferocity, and as society 
was split up into numberless sections, each baron 
being the head of his vassals, dissensions easily 
arose, and in the absence of legal tribunals, the 
appeal to the sword was frequent. The want of 
regular civil process led to the enforcement of 
right by military display, and as the jarring claims 
of certain bishops and abbots to jurisdiction, or to 
precedence, involved civil rights and privileges, 
they were sometimes supported and enforced by 
their respective vassals, in sanguinary contests. 
Elections to the vacant chair of Peter, were 
often attended or followed by bloody strife, the 
partisans of some ambitious aspirant using force, 
which the friends of the lawful claimant were 
under the necessity of repelling. Church pre- 
lates, like other feudal lords, were obliged to 
send their vassals to the support of the lord para- 
mount, and were often required to appear in per- 
son on the battle-field, although they were not 
obliged themselves to take part in the contest. 
I am not disposed to deny that those ages were 
marked by many acts of cruelty and barbarity, 
which at this day must excite amazement — such 



ON ABUSES. 287 

as tlie frequent scooping out of the eyes — the 
cutting out of the tongue — the mutilation of 
ears and nose — and various other punishments 
of a revolting character. I admit that some 
bishops displayed rather the bravery of the 
soldier, than the mild virtues of their office, 
which, considering the general temper of the 
times, is scarcely a matter of wonder. The civili- 
zation of those nations could not be perfected in 
a moment; it was progressing gradually, and 
almost imperceptibly by the application of the 
Christian maxims to daily life. Their influence, 
even on the clergy, was not instantaneous and 
absolute. These were taken from the midst of 
their countrymen, whose sentiments and dispo- 
sitions they shared. It was much to restrain 
them within certain limits. By degrees they 
became imbued with the meek spirit of their 
Divine Model, and successfully exerted their 
influence to promote peace and order. Dr. 
l!^evin, the learned President of Marshall Col- 
lege, having stated that the Church was intrusted 
by Providence, with the task of reforming and 
training the nations, asks: "Was this providen- 
tial trust, then, abused in its actual administra- 
tion ? Did the Church exercise her guardianship 
over the infant nations of Europe, in such a 
way as, instead of assisting, to repress their up- 
ward tendencies— in such a way as to retard 
rather than to advance their progress in true 
civilization? We have seen already that she 



238 ON ABUSES. 

was a fountain of order and law; that slie 
brought society into regular and settled form ; 
that she caused the wilderness to become a 
fruitful field; that she curbed the passions of 
men, and set bounds to their violence ; that she 
led them to dwell .in families, and to cultivate 
the domestic virtues ; that she inoculated man- 
ners with a new spirit of gentleness and peace ; 
that she raised the standard of morality, and 
purified the public conscience far beyond all that 
was known in the ancient world; that she 
established a reign and fashion of benevolence, 
such as had not previously entered the wildest 
dreams of philanthropy. We have seen all this, 
and have felt that a power so employed could 
not well be at war with the best interests of 
humanity.*" 

Among the exaggerations of the evils of those 
times I must point to your account of the dis- 
orders of the University of Paris, in the thir- 
teenth century. It is taken professedly from 
Fleury, who recites the words of a cotemporary 
author, and gives the enactments made to remedy 
them. So far you are sustained by evidence ; 
yet you make a strange mistake in translating 
the historian, which gives a false coloring to the 
whole statement, and afibrds you matter for 
much comment. The Papal Legate who visited 
the University, complained that the students on 

* Mercersburg Review, March, 1851, art. Modern Civilization. 



ON ABUSES. 239 

certain festivals broke through all restraint, and 
among other things in the very churches, in 
which they should assemble to celebrate the 
divine office, played at dice on the altars, on 
which the Body and Blood of Christ are conse- 
crated. You translate it : "on which they con- 
secrate;" mistaking altogether the force of the 
French phrase, '''on consacre'' Excuse this small 
verbal criticism. Thus you make them all 
priests, and instead of a college outbreak on a 
festival in which the vigilance of Superiors was 
relaxed, you actually charge the professors and 
priests as guilty of habitual profanation of the 
altars on which they offered up the Victim of 
our ransom. The fact in question is difficult to 
conceive, but it possibly may have been con- 
nected with some of those strange plays which 
were in vogue in the middle ages. You give a 
frightful picture of the morals of the students ; 
but you might have somewhat relieved its shades, 
by some contrary examples of virtue. You 
might also have reflected, that where thousands 
of youth from all nations were gathered together? 
great disorders might be naturally expected. 
Most probably they had not College Proctors tra- 
versing the streets of Paris, as now at Oxford, 
even in open day, to watch the behavior of the 
students. It was the glory of the Popes to foster 
education everywhere, by great privileges be- 
stowed on those who frequented the schools of 
the University, as it was their care to interpose 



240 ON ABUSES. 

their authority to repress disorders. That of 
Paris had many holy youths within its walls, 
some of whom like Innocent HI. rose to the 
highest dignity ; others are now on the calendar 
of saints. When occasionally disorder manifested 
itself, it was punished and corrected. Under 
Innocent, four of the professors, distinguished 
for learning and piety, with a number of the 
students, retired to a valley in the diocese of 
Langres, and there devoted themselves to con- 
templation and other exercises of piety. It is 
fair to counterbalance evil with good in esti- 
mating the moral influence of an institution. 

You have studiously kept out of view the 
brilliant examples of virtue with which the 
history of the Church abounds, and seldom re- 
ferred to them unless to caricature and mock 
them. Yet even they give but a faint idea of 
the amount of good which at all times was prac- 
tised, since vice is of itself more forward and 
remarkable, whilst virtue courts secresy, and 
desires no witness or approver but God. St. 
Augustin, when reproached by the Donatists 
with the scandals of Catholics, observed that the 
wicked are like chaff raised on high and driven 
about by the wind, whilst the good are as wheat, 
lying concealed on the threshing-floor. "Let 
us not imagine that the good are few in num- 
ber ; they are many, but they lie concealed 
amidst a great multitude ; for we cannot deny 
that the wicked are in greater number, so that 



ON ABUSES. 241 

the good are scarcely discernible among them, 
as the grains of wheat are not perceptible on the 
threshing-floor. A man who looks on the 
threshing-floor, may imagine that all is mere 
chaff; yet there is a quantity of grain there to 
be cleansed and winnowed. Then will appear 
the wheat which lay amidst the chaff. Do you 
wish to discover the good at present ? Be good 
yourself."* Many monastic institutions arose 
in the middle ages, and effectually fostered piety 
and such learning as the circumstances of the 
times admitted. From earliest youth during a 
long life many preserved their innocence, under 
the shelter of the cloister. Others w^ent forth 
from it, with the zeal of the Baptist, to confront 
a corrupt world, and to announce the judgments 
of God against the impenitent. It was in them 
that St. Bernard, St. Peter Damiani, St. Gre- 
gory YH., with many other eminent saints, were 
trained and prepared for vindicating the integrity 
of faith and the purity of morals. Others fled 
to the monasteries, as asylums from the prevail- 
ing corruption, or to atone by exercises of pe- 
nance for the irregularities and disorders of their 
early life. There were also, in all the walks of life, 
blameless men, who lived by faith, whose con- 
versation was in heaven, and who took occasion 
from the evils by which they were surrounded, 
to practise every sublime virtue. 

* Enarr. in Ps. xlvii. 9. 
21 



242 ON ABUSES. 

"Whatever may have been the scandals and 
abuses of the middle ages, is wholly irrelevant 
to the English schism, which originated mani- 
festly and exclusively in the ungovernable pas- 
sion of the monarch. As long as his own feelings 
were not interested, he took pride in professing 
his attachment to the Church, and repelled, with 
the applause of the PontifiJ the attack made by 
Luther on her sacraments. There is not the 
slightest evidence that he was moved in the least 
degree by the consideration of the disorders 
recorded in history, or of the examples in his 
own times, to break the bonds of unity. As for 
Cranmer, for whom you claim the praise of 
leader in the work of Reformation, his two suc- 
cessive marriages, in violation of his college 
obligations and priestly vows, show at once 
that moral considerations did not influence his 
career. 



LETTER XIX. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

THE proofs which Dr. Milner adduced from 
Tertullian, St. Leo, St. Ambrose, St. Martin? 
and St. Gregory the Great, that the Church dis- 
claims the principle of persecution, have elicited 
from you an avowal of the fact, which, however, 
you limit to their times. The first instance of 
burning heretics alive, which you give, is in the 
ninth century. " This new and horrible punish- 
ment became," you say, "universal through all 
the countries in Europe by established law," You 
then charge the Popes, the Bishops, and the 
clergy generally, with the chief influence in the 
enactment of the laws during the whole period 
of the middle ages, and especially of these laws. 
If you had told your readers, that Michael Curo- 
palates. Emperor of Constantinople, was au- 
thor of those executions in the ninth century, 
you would not have had the opportunity to 
charge them on the Church. The Patriarch 
Nicephorus opposed the imperial decree, and 



244 PERSECUTION. 

succeeded for a time in checking the too ardent 
zeal of the Emperor, observing to him that it 
was proper to leave room for repentance, and 
that ecclesiastics are not allowed to condemn to 
death. The Emperor Justinian IT. had decreed 
that the Manicheans should be prosecuted, and 
if found guilty, burnt alive, as was done in 
regard to some of them. It is false that "the 
Church first invented the diabolical law of burn- 
ing heretics." That law emanated from the 
civil power, which alone could inflict capital 
punishment. The influence of the Church was 
employed in the days of St. Augustin, and for 
ages afterwards, to prevent it. When the Cir- 
cumcellions, by acts of violence and by blood- 
shed, had provoked the severity of the authori- 
ties, he wrote to the Proconsul of Africa, be- 
seeching him through Jesus Christ not to punish 
them capitally : " "We wish them to be corrected, 
but not put to death."* 

Your chief reliance to fasten on us the princi- 
ple of persecution, is the decree of the fourth 
Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III., 
in the year 1215. ""We excommunicate and 
anathematize," say the fathers, "every heresy 
that raiseth itself up against this holy, orthodox, 
and catholic faith, which we have set forth 
above ; condemning all heretics, by whatsoever 
names they may be designated, having indeed 

* Ep. c. dim. cxxvii. 



PERSECUTION. 245 

different faces, but their tails being joined 
together, since they come to the same thing 
through vanity." This canon is an act of the 
ecclesiastical authority, of an unmixed kind, 
and is necessarily received by all Catholics. The 
enactments which follow are of a different cha- 
racter. They are practical measures adapted to 
the circumstances of the times and places for 
which they were made : they were never generally 
carried out ; and they have long ceased to have any 
force whatever. You strive hard to prove that 
they establish a principle which every Catholic 
is bound to admit, although from the very terms 
you must perceive, that they were directed 
against the pernicious errors that then threatened 
the destruction of society. 

In the profession of faith, which is premised, 
the fathers declare their belief in one God, the 
Creator of all things, and that the devils were 
not from eternity, but fell by sin : they add that 
persons may be saved in the married state, as 
well as in celibacy. From this we may easily 
deduce the errors which were then prevailing, 
the same as St. Leo described, which in his time 
had provoked the severity of the civil authorities. 
" Justly did our fathers, in whose times this im- 
pious heresy burst forth, use every exertion 
throughout the whole world to expel the wicked 
frenzy from the entire Church ; since even secu- 
lar princes had such horror of this sacrilegious 
madness, that they struck the author of it, and 

21* 



246 PERSECUTION. 

many of his followers, with the sword of the 
puhlic laws. For they saw that every regard 
for decorum was removed, the marriage tie dis- 
solved, and divine and human laws subverted, 
if such men, professing such principles, were 
allowed to live anywhere. That severity was 
for a long time advantageous to the lenity of the 
Church, which, although contented with her 
priestly judgment, she shrinks from sanguinary 
revenge, is nevertheless aided by the severe en- 
actments of Christian princes, inasmuch as those 
who fear corporal punishment, sometimes have 
recourse to the spiritual remedy."* 

It is remarkable that the third Council of La- 
teran, held in 1179, employed this passage to 
explain and justify its decrees against the secta- 
ries. The fourth Council proceeded in the same 
spirit, and on the same grounds, having in view 
their abominable practices and outrages, and ac- 
cordingly directed that in case of conviction, 
they should be left to the bailiffs or civil officers 
to be punished according to law. No punishment 
was specified ; for the confiscation of property, 
which is mentioned, was incidental to capital 
punishment, which the civil law assigned to the 
crime of heresy, and was only referred to pro- 
bably because, by an arrangement with the au- 
thorities, the property of clergymen was excepted 
from the general law, and reserved to the Church 

■^ Ep. ad Turibium. 



PERSECUTION. 247 

in which they had ministered. This Council ex- 
pressly forbids any clergyman to put his name 
to any document connected with capital punish- 
ment. 

I do not, however, dissemble that the appro- 
val of these penal laws appears to be implied in 
this canon, especially since the authorities were 
required to bind themselves to extirpate all he- 
resies branded by the Church. 

A sanction also was given to the crusades 
against these sectaries, grounded on the neces- 
sity of protecting the defenceless, and checking 
those acts of violence which were constantly 
practised. " They practise," says the preceding 
Council, ^' such violence against Christians, as 
not to spare churches or monasteries, widows or 
orphans, aged persons or children, age or sex, 
but heathen-like, they destroy and devastate all 
things."* These outrages were countenanced 
and encouraged by some barons, and could not 
be effectually repressed, unless by a combined 
effort, in which volunteers from all parts should 
be enlisted. Hence the fathers said: "We en- 
join on all the faithful for the remission of their 
sins, to oppose manfully such havoc, and defend 
with arms the Christian people." 

The term exterminare employed in those de- 
crees does not, in its ecclesiastical or classical ac- 
ceptation, bear the same force as the correspond- 

^ Can. ult. 



248 PERSECUTION. 

ing Englisli word. Cicero speaks of those who 
forbid foreigners to reside in the cities, " eosque 
exterminantj" that is, banish them beyond the city 
limits.* The Council uses it to express all ne- 
cessary measures for breaking up and disbanding 
the sectarian hordes, which as armed banditti 
infested the country. 

The various civil authorities who " claimed to 
be regarded as faithful," were required to cleanse 
their territories of "this heretical filth," under 
penalty of excommunication, and of forfeiting 
their fiefs, in case they continued a year under 
censure. The qualification inserted in the de- 
cree shows that it was as Catholics they were 
brought within its operation, and that it sup- 
posed a league between the Catholic powers to 
extirpate, by all just means, the prevailing sects ; 
all agreeing to the annexing of this condition 
to the tenure of their fiefs. The consent of the 
civil powers must have been given to this ar- 
rangement, which otherwise could not take 
effect. There were, in fact, present there, the 
ambassadors of Frederick, King of Sicily, Em- 
peror elect ; of Henry, Emperor of Constanti- 
nople ; of the Kings of France, England, Hun- 
gary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Aragon ; and represen- 
tatives of other powers, and of various cities. 
It is well known, as Kent, Wheaton, and others 
have distinctly stated, that the councils of the 

^ Offic. iii. xi. post init. 



PERSECUTION. 249 

middle ages bore in many respects a mixed cha- 
racter, so that they were in a great degree meet- 
ings of the States-General of Europe. 

There is nothing to make it appear that these 
enactments express any Catholic principle ; still 
less that they have any binding force at this day. 
If the Inquisition be in some respects conform- 
able to them, inasmuch as the culprit is delivered 
over to the civil power, we must remember that 
it is an institution of the same age, and origi- 
nally directed against the same enemies of so- 
ciety. Its action ceased soon after they disap- 
peared. Its revival in Spain, at the close of the 
fifteenth century, was owing to political rather 
than religious considerations, to guard the mon- 
archy and the nation against the secret machi- 
nations of false Christians, combined with the 
Moors and Jews, and its severity and cruelty, 
under Philip II., were occasioned by the fears of 
the prince, lest Spain should become the scene 
of wars, for religion's sake, like France and Ger- 
many. It is now extinct altogether, the Roman 
tribunal being merely ecclesiastical, with scarcely 
any civil attributions, all of which are confined to 
the Pontifical States. It should also be recollected 
that as the Inquisition was a mixed tribunal, the 
cognizance of the cause belonged to ecclesiastics, 
whose province it was to judge of what conBti- 
tuted heresy, whilst the punishment depended al- 
together on the civil power. The clergy, on com- 
mitting the culprit to the civil authorities, entered 



250 PERSECUTION. 

a protest against blood shedding, which, although 
it was but a formulary, expressed, nevertheless, 
the reluctance of the Church to see her apostate 
children, by their own obstinacy in error, sub- 
jected to the highest penalty of the law. The 
axiom, Ecclesia ahhorreta sanguine, " the Church 
abhors bloodshed," was universally acknow- 
ledged. Any clergyman concurring to the in- 
fliction of capital punishment was disqualified 
from exercising the ministry. 

The Star Chamber, instituted under Eliza- 
beth for the cognizance of offences against 
the penal laws regarding religion, consisted of 
forty-four commissioners, twelve of whom were 
bishops, many more privy councillors, and the 
rest either clergymen or civilians. Inquisitorial 
powers of the amplest kind were given to them, 
and any three of them were authorized to pun- 
ish any word or writing tending towards heresy, 
schism, or sedition. All the ordinary restraints 
on judicial proceedings were removed, and dis- 
cretionary powers granted. Elizabeth seemed 
to relent in this persecution of Catholics, " but 
such of her advisers as leaned towards the Puri- 
tan faction, and too many of the Anglican clergy, 
whether Puritan or not, thought no measure of 
charity or compassion should be extended to 
them."* Archbishop Parker " complained of 
what he called ' a Machiavel government,' that 

* Strype's Whitgift, p. 212. 



PERSECUTION. 251 

is, of the Queen's lenity in not absolutely rooting 
them out." The most secret exercise of the 
Catholic religion was sought out and punished. 
" Thus we read, in the Life of Whitgift (Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury), that on information 
given that some ladies and others heard mass in 
the house of one Edwards, by night, in the 
county of Denbigh, he being then Bishop of 
Worcester, and Vice-President of Wales, was 
directed to make inquiry into the facts ; and 
finally was instructed to commit Edwards to close 
prison ; and as for another person implicated, 
named Morice, if he remained obstinate, he 
might cause some kind of torture to be used 
upon him, and the like order they prayed him 
to use with the others." The same prelate cen- 
sured a book, written about 1585, by Beale, 
against the Commissioners, and marked as an 
enormous proposition, that " he condemned, 
without exception of any cause, racking of griev- 
ous offenders, as being cruel, heinous, contrary 
to law, and unto the liberty of English subjects." 

When, under James the First, it was proposed 
to lessen the severity of the penal laws against 
Catholics, the Archbishop of Canterbury remon- 
strated with him, assuring him that such a mea- 
sure would call down upon him and upon his 
kingdom God's heavy anger and indignation. 

If I may compare the Inquisition and Star 
Chamber, as Hallam, Mackintosh, and others 
have done, I must say that the former was far 



252 PERSECUTION. 

less odious. The standard by which it judged 
of heresy, was the doctrine of the Universal 
Church, believed to be infallible in her teaching ; 
the culprits were those who had been baptized, 
and had acknowledged her authority, since the 
tribunal did not claim power over unbaptized 
persons, or such as had been brought up in 
heresy; so that its operation was confined to 
apostates, or to those who dissembled their 
heresy, in order to spread it more widely. The 
Star Chamber was composed of men who ac- 
knowledged no infallible authority, and whose 
opinions varied from those which for nearly a 
thousand years had prevailed in the nation. Its 
victims were men who, from conscientious con- 
viction, clung to the faith of their ancestors, and 
without tumult or display, sought to practise 
the duties and enjoy the consolations of religion. 
In the use of the rack, both tribunals were alike, 
inasmuch as this mode of eliciting a confession 
was then adopted in all courts ; in the ultimate 
penalty they resembled one another, although 
the Inquisition did not order its infliction ; but 
in every other respect, as far as humanity, justice, 
and truth are concerned, the Inquisition had 
vastly the advantage of the Star Chamber. 

You impute all the cruelty of this tribunal 
and of the laws made under Henry Yin., Ed- 
ward YI., and Elizabeth, to the principles of 
Popery, which the reformers had not yet un- 
learned, of which you find evidence in the statute 



PERSECUTION. 253 

for the burning of heretics, "de hseretico com- 
burendo," passed in the fifteenth century, in 
conformity, as you allege, with the canon of La- 
teran. As the Eeformers professed no respect 
for the principles of the Church, and boasted of 
extraordinary light in the work which they had 
undertaken, we should have expected them to 
have soon rid themselves of any prejudice so 
repugnant to humanity. The statute alluded to 
was enacted in the year 1400, nearly two centu- 
ries after the Council of Lateran, and without 
any reference to its canons. The civil law, long 
before that Council, attached the penalty of 
death to heresy, and the English statute was 
passed conformably to that general jurispru- 
dence, when the Lollards, by riots and insur- 
rection, awakened the fears of the government. 
To the honor of England it must be said, that 
very few instances occurred of punishment on 
the score of religion, up to the time of Henry 
VJLii. The principle on which the English 
courts proceeded, is stated by the late Chiet 
Justice of Delaware, Thomas Clayton, in justifi- 
cation of his judgment in a case of most revolt- 
ing blasphemy, to which he attached an ex- 
tremely mild penalty : "Infidelity is proved by 
all history to be in character not less intolerant 
than fanaticism. In all cases where the ten- 
dency of any man's acts or words was, in the 
judgment of a common law court, to disturb the 
common peace of the land, of which it was the 

22 



254 PERSECUTION. 

preserver and protector, or to lead to a breach of 
it, and the good order of society, considered 
merely as a civil institution, the common law 
avenged the wrong done to civil society alone. 
He, therefore, who subverted, reviled, or ridi- 
culed the religion of our English ancestors, was 
punished at common law, not for his offence 
against his God, but for his offence against man, 
whose peace and safety, as they believed, was 

endangered by such conduct To sustain 

the soundness of this opinion, their descendants 
point us to the tears and blood of revolutionary 
France during that reign of terror, when infi- 
delity triumphed, and the abrogation of the 
Christian faith was succeeded by the worship of 
the goddess of reason, and they aver that with- 
out THIS RELIGHON, NO NATION HAS EVER YET CON- 
TINUED FREE."* 

The same principle was doubtless common to 
the legislators and courts of other Catholic na- 
tions, although from the usual connection of 
violence with heresy, the mere profession of it 
came to be regarded as a crime punishable by 
the civil authority. Catholic jurists and divines 
supported this legislation, and the Keformers, 
Calvin, Beza, and many others, expressly main- 
tained it, with this difference, that they limited 
its application to those who, like Servetus, denied 
the leading mysteries of faith, or extended it to 

* State vs. Chandler, 2 Harrington, Delaware, p. 557, 



PERSECUTION. 255 

those who clung to the ancient religion. The 
punishment of Jerom of Prague, and John Huss, 
with which you reproach us, was not for in- 
noxious errors, but for tenets which sapped the 
foundations of society, by making obedience 
dependent on the moral integrity of the ruler. 
It was not in violation of the safe conduct granted 
to them, which was in general terms to secure 
them from molestation, that they might present 
themselves for trial, without defeating the ends 
of justice. It was not the act of the Council, 
which expressly declared that its power did not 
extend beyond the sentence of excommunica- 
tion.* It is untrue, then, that, as you assert, 
"the fathers had the satisfaction of committing 
them to the flames." In regard to all that has 
been done at any time according to legal process, 
it is fair to examine the nature of the errors 
professed, and the actions of the sectaries them- 
selves, before we pronounce judgment. St. 
Augustin, when reproached by the Donatists 
with the persecuting laws enforced against them, 
replied: "If any severity inconsistent with 
Christian lenity has, at any time, been exercised 
towards them, it displeases all true Christians ;"t 
and although he defended the laws as rendered 
necessary by their outrages, he deprecated the 
infliction of capital punishment : " Ko good man 

* Sess. XV. See Labbe's Cone. t. xii. p. 129. 
t L. 1 contra ep. Parmen. c, xiii. 



256 PERSECUTION. 

in the Catholic Churcli approves of the capital 
punishment of a heretic."* If, in after ages, 
ecclesiastics have defended such enactments, it 
has been in consequence of the peculiar atrocities 
which accompanied the profession of heresy. 
As to treachery, assassination, and massacre, 
words cannot express our horror for those crimes, 
by whomsoever they may be committed. The 
massacre of St. Bartholomew was the unpre- 
meditated act of Charles IX., instigated by his 
mother, Catharine, under the apprehension 
of a conspiracy against the royal family, as 
well as religion. t The rejoicings at Eome arose 
from the false representations of the French am- 
bassador, who stated that by an act of summary 
justice, the machinations of the rebels had been 
frustrated. The crimes which they had already 
perpetrated, the assassinations, revolts, and sacri- 
leges of which they had been guilty, prepared 
meli to believe the evil designs which were im- 
puted to them. In like manner the assassina- 
tions ordered by Henry HI., and the counte- 
nance given by him to the enemies of religion, 
caused his own assassination to be regarded as 
a just visitation of Providence, although the 
treachery by which he fell deserved all exe- 
cration. Cardinal Gotti maintains that Clement, 

* Contra Crescon. 1. iii. c. 4, n. 55. 

t See vindication of certain passages in the fourth and fifth 
volumes of the History of England, by J. Lingard, D.D. 



PERSECUTION. 267 

his reputed murderer, had no share in his death, 
but was himself a victim of the conspiracy by 
which the monarch fell.* 

The executions under Queen Mary, had no 
reference whatever to the canons of Lateran, as 
you allege. Mary, herself, was humane and 
disposed to be tolerant, until the treasonable 
conduct of the Keformers led to the adoption of 
severe counsels. When she first came to the 
throne, she assured the lord mayor and the 
aldermen of London, that " she meant graciously 
not to compel or strain other people's con- 
sciences.'* This forbearance was soon abused; 
preachers publicly styled her Jezabel ; a priest, 
celebrating Mass in the Church of St. Bartholo- 
mew, in Smithfield, was insulted ;t a preacher 
at St. Paul's Cross was hooted at, and narrowly 
escaped with his life, a dagger being flung at his 
head; J "as a priest was administering the 
eucharist in St. Margaret's Church, "Westminster, 
a man drew a hanger, and wounded him upon 
the head, hand, and other parts of his body ; "§ 
a conspiracy was formed, of which Sir Thomas 
Wyatt was leader, and to which Poinet, Pro- 
testant Bishop of Winchester, was a party, to 
dethrone the Queen, and restore the Protestant 
ascendency. Another conspiracy of the like 
nature was afterwards entered into. To these 

^ Vera Ecclesia Christi, c. iii. § 3. t Soames, iv. p. 31. 

X Strype, Eccl. Mem. iv. p. 33 ; Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 22. 
§ Soames iv. p. 403. Strype, Eccl. Mem. iii. p. 210-212. 
22* 



258 PERSECUTION. 

lawless and treasonable proceedings we must 
ascribe her change of policy. The two hundred 
and eighty-eight executions of sectaries, which 
are reported to have taken place during the last 
four years of her reign, are reduced to two 
hundred by Dr. Lingard, who regards the others 
as cases of treason. The Catholic prelates, gene- 
rally, especially Cardinal Pole, were averse to 
these sanguinary measures: "He said, pastors 
ought to have bowels, even to their straying 
sheep ; bishops were fathers, and ought to look 
on those that erred as their sick children, and 
not for that to kill them."* Alphonsus di 
Castro, a Spanish friar, the chaplain of Philip, 
*4n a sermon before that monarch, preached 
largely against the taking away of the people's 
lives for religion — and hereupon there was a 
stop for several weeks to these severities, "f 
"The bishops," says Soames, "eagerly availed 
themselves of any subterfuge, whereby they 
could escape pronouncing these revolting sen- 
tences."! They could not decline the office 
enjoined on them by law to try culprits arraigned 
for heresy, and they were bound to deliver them 
when convicted to the secular power, with a 
recommendation to mercy. Bonner, Bishop of 
London, wrote: "I marvel that other men will 
trouble me with their matters, but I must be 

* Burnet ii. p. 467. •}• lb. p. 477. 

X Hist. Ref. iv. p. 412. 



PERSECUTION. 259 

obedient to my betters, and I fear men speak of 
me otherwise than I deserve."* All Catholics 
at this day deplore these executions, which can 
only be ascribed to mistaken state policy, 
adopted under great provocation, l^o principle 
of the Catholic religion dictated it. 

When you charge the Jesuit missionaries in 
the Indies with cruelty and persecution, you 
mistake entirely their character. Indulgence 
and kindness have always distinguished them 
in their labors, whether to convert the heathen, 
or to reclaim sinners ; so that the charges against 
them always turned on their extreme condescen- 
sion, as you may judge from what you state of 
their toleration of Chinese usages. They have 
never been connected with the Inquisition, and 
never advocated measures of severity towards 
sectaries. If in Goa cruelty was practised at 
any time, the Portuguese authorities should 
bear the censure. You equally mistake Catholic 
principles, when you assert that " our religion 
makes it a duty to torture and burn all dis- 
senters for the love of God." The direct con- 
trary is the truth. Our religion teaches us to love 
all mankind, to bear with their errors and vices, 
to forgive the wrongs which they do to us, and 
to return them by blessings. "We know the 
spirit of Him who was meek and humble of 
heart. When you justify the men who shed 
the blood of our peaceful missionaries, and vir- 

* Foxe, iii. p. 462 ; vol. ii. p. 29. 



260 PERSECUTION. 

tually instigate others to sacrifice us " as the 
worst enemies of mankind;" when you call our 
martyrs " martyrs of the devil,"* we pity your 
ignorance of our real principles, and pardon 
your impiety. To you, who are wont to speak 
plainly, I need not apologize for this language. 
You boast that the Church of England never 
persecuted. I am at a loss to know what I am 
to understand by that church. If the legal 
heads of it, and the authors and promoters of 
the schism be considered, Henry \JLLL. and Eli- 
zabeth were certainly persecutors of the worst 
kind. Edward YI. was so misled by his tutors 
that he strove to force his own sister to abjure her 
faith. Cranmer, for whom you claim the great 
merit of spreading the new principles, concurred 
with Somerset, the Protector, in procuring the 
enactment of most sanguinary laws against the 
professors of the ancient creed. "All who 
should deny the king's supremacy were for the 
first ofience to forfeit their goods and chattels, 
and to suffer imprisonment during pleasure; 
for the second, they were to incur the penalties 
of prcemunire; for the third, they were to be at- 
tainted as traitors, "t From its first existence 
as the creature of Royalty, it had no power of 
action, no independent voice, it could only 
speak or act through the Parliament, or the 
sovereign ; consequently those Acts which passed 

* Vol. ii. p. 29. t Soames, iii. p. 185, 



PERSECUTION. 261 

without opposition from its prelates, and still 
more those which were suggested and supported 
by them, such as the Acts under Edward, which 
generally received the warm support of Cranmer, 
may be fairly taken for their own. In the book 
of ecclesiastical laws, which he composed by 
order of Edward, the penalty of death, with con- 
fiscation of goods, is denounced against all who 
deny the Catholic faith, by which the mystery 
of the Trinity seems there specially meant. 
Persons accused of heresy — which was a more 
comprehensive term — were to be imprisoned, 
until tried, in default of security for their ap- 
pearance ; and if on conviction they should re- 
fuse to abjure their errors, they were to be 
delivered over to the secular power. The death 
of George Van Parr, a Hollander resident in 
London, found guilty of Arianism, is justly laid 
to Cranmer's charge, as " truly the effect of 
those principles by which he governed him- 
self."* When Elizabeth came to the throne, 
an Act of Parliament was passed, declaring her 
" supream governesse"t of the Church of Eng- 
land, which every ecclesiastical person was re- 
quired to acknowledge on oath, under penalty 
of forfeiture of his benefice ; followed by another 
Act, which decreed, that if " any should either 
by discourse or in writing, set forth the authority 
of any foreign power, or do anything for the ad- 

* Burnet, ii. p. 181. f Heylin, p. 108. 



262 PERSECUTION. 

vancement of it, they were for tlie first offence 
to forfeit all their goods and chattels ; and if 
they had not goods to the value of twenty 
pounds, they were to be imprisoned a whole 
year ; and for the second offence, they were to 
incur the pains of a prcemunire ; and the third 
offence was treason."* This gentle means was 
employed to enforce the claims of the Supreme 
Governess of the Church of England ! All the 
bishops, except Kitchen of Landaff, fourteen or 
fifteen in number, refusing to take the oath of 
supremacy, were deprived of their sees and 
committed to prison. Cranmer, Parker, Whit- 
gift, and Bancroft, all occupants of Canterbury, 
advocated the persecution of Catholics. The 
Convocation, in 1577, ordered Roland Jenks, a 
Catholic bookseller in Oxford, to be appre- 
hended for speaking against the new religion, 
put in irons, his goods seized, and his trial to 
take place at the ensuing assizes ; when he was 
sentenced to have his ears nailed to the pillory, 
and to set himself free by cutting them off with 
his own hand. The Church by law established, 
was forced on a reluctant people by penal laws, 
devised with ingenuity, and executed without 
mercy. Its rise and progress are written in the 
blood of the professors of the ancient faith ; and 
at every attempt to loose the chains of its victims, 
the hellish yell was raised to prevent their relief, 

* Burnet, iii. p. 602. 



PERSECUTION. 263 

"The Church is in danger!" "I cannot con- 
ceive," said Edmund Burke — insinuating the 
truth of the charge, whilst he affected to repel 
it — "how anything worse can be said of the 
Protestant religion of the Church of England 
than this, that wherever it is judged proper to 
give it a legal establishment, it becomes neces- 
sary to deprive the body of the people, if they 
adhere to their old opinions, of * their liberties 
and of all their free customs,' and to reduce 
them to a state of civil servitude."* 

Some instances may be necessary to illustrate 
the working of this penal system. Sir Edward 
Waldgrave and his Lady, in 1561, were sent to 
the Tower, for hearing Mass, and having a priest 
in their house, and many others were punished 
in like manner. Two bishops, in 1562, wrote to 
the Council advising that a priest, found in Lady 
Carew's house, be put to some kind of tor- 
ment, to elicit a confession that might enable 
the Queen to levy great fines for violation of the 
law by the Catholic worship.f In the year 1563, 
the obligation of taking the oath of supremacy 
was extended to the whole Catholic population. 
The refusal to take it was punishable with for- 
feiture and imprisonment, and a second refusal, 
when tendered anew, after three months, sub- 
jected the recusant to the penalties of high 

•'^ Letter to Sir Hercules Langri$he, M, P. 
f Hallam, Constit. Hist. i.p. 153. 



264 PERSECUTION. 

treason.* In vain did Lord Montague plead: 
"I do entreat whether it be just to make this 
penal statute to force the subjects of this realm 
to receive and believe the religion of Protestants 
on pain of death." Hallam observes: "In 
Strype's collections, we find abundance of per- 
sons harassed for recusancy; that is, for not 
attending the Protestant Church, and driven to 
insincere promises of conformity. Others were 
dragged before the ecclesiastical commission for 
harboring priests." "By stealth, at the dead of 
night, in private chambers, in the secret lurking 
places of an ill-peopled country, with all the 
mystery that subdues the imagination, with all 
the mutual trust that invigorates constancy, 
these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their 
solemn rites, more impressive in such conceal- 
ment, than if surrounded by all their former 
splendor."* 

You admit that "the laws passed in the reign 
of Elizabeth, were exceedingly severe," and add: 
"but the alarms and acts of Rome made them 
necessary, in self-protection. "J !N"ow it is cer- 
tain that Elizabeth had been acknowledged 
Queen with acclamation by her Catholic sub- 
jects, and had no cause of dissatisfaction with 
them during the first ten years of her reign, 
during which these sanguinary enactments were 

■^ Hallam, Const. Hist. i. p. 161, 163. 

t V. Eliz. c. i. t Vol. ii. p. 388. 



PERSECUTION. 265 

made. You allege that she had been excommu- 
nicated by the Pope. The Bull is dated 25th 
February, 1570, and cannot, therefore, have 
been the cause of enactments made so far back 
as 1559. These, followed by the process against 
Mary Stuart, gave occasion to the excommuni- 
cation. Even afterwards, the Catholics generally 
continued to give undoubted proofs of their 
loyalty, although extreme persecution maddened 
some into revolt. 

The chief victims under Elizabeth were sacri- 
ficed for their religion, without a shadow of 
other offence against the laws. Edward Hanse, 
formerly a Protestant clergyman, afterwards a 
priest, was executed, for acknowledging that the 
*Pope had then the same authority in England 
that he had a hundred years before. Campion, 
a convert likewise, and a Jesuit, after having 
endured the rack many times, was convicted of 
treason, although he solemnly acknowledged 
Elizabeth as Queen. Mackintosh and Hallam 
acknowledge that the charge was groundless. He, 
with Sherwin and Briant, suffered the death of 
traitors. Six others, after long imprisonment, 
were executed on 30th May, 1582. 

" The rack seldom stood idle in the Tower for 
all the latter part of Elizabeth's reign."* The 
scavenger s daughter, or hoop, was another instru- 
ment of torture, in which the body was com- 

* Hallam, Const. Hist. i. p. 200. 
23 



266 PERSECUTION. 

pressed until the head and feet met. I shall not 
undertake to describe the other instruments of 
torture, or the cruelties practised towards indi- 
viduals. 

The offences for which Catholics suffered were 
generally religious exercises. Cuthbert Mayne, 
a priest in Cornwall, charged with having ob- 
tained a Bull from Eome, (no other than the 
copy of a Bull of Jubilee,) of denying the supre- 
macy, and of saying Mass, was convicted on 
mere presumptions, and hanged, "without any 
charge against him but his religion."* Tregian, 
in whose house Mayne had celebrated Mass, 
lingered in prison eight-and-twenty years. Two 
other priests suffered at Tyburn for the same 
offence. 

In the year 1585, thirteen clergymen, four 
laymen, and a lady named Cithero, suffered the 
death of traitors, merely for their religion. She 
was found guilty of harboring priests. I forbear 
narrating the barbarous manner of her execu- 
tion. In 1586, Mrs. Ward was hanged, drawn 
and quartered, for assisting a priest to escape ; 
in 1601, Mrs. Lyne was punished in like man- 
ner, for the same offence. In 1587, eight Catho- 
lics were executed; in 1588, nearly forty, the 
majority of whom were priests. "The Catholic 
martyrs, under Elizabeth," says Hallam, " amount 

* Hallam, Const. Hist. i. p. 19C ; see also Mackintosh, iii. p. 
284; Bridgewater, p. 34, 35; Stowe, an. 1577. 



PERSECUTION. 267 

to no inconsiderable number. Dodd reckons 
them at 191 ; Milner has raised the list to 204. 
Fifteen of these, according to him, suffered for 
denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for ex- 
ercising their ministry, and the rest for being 
reconciled to the Romish Church. Many others 
died of hardships in prison, and many were de- 
prived of their property."* The heavy fines 
constantly levied for not attending at the new 
service, the imprisonment of multitudes for this 
offence, and the punishment of many, show the 
most unrelenting persecution, on the largest 
scale possible. Some of them had their ears 
bored with a hot iron, others were publicly 
whipped. 

Your plea of necessity for these persecutions, 
is by anticipation rejected by Hallam. "The 
statutes of Elizabeth's reign, comprehend every 
one of these progressive degrees of restraint and 
persecution. And it is much to be regretted 
that any writers worthy of respect should, either 
through undue prejudice against an adverse 
religion, or through timid acquiescence in what- 
ever has been enacted, have offered for this 
odious code the false pretext of political neces- 

8ity."t 

I should never end were I to enter into a 
detail of the persecutions endured by the Catho- 
lics of Ireland, for adherence to the ancient 

* Vol. i. p. 221. t Ibid. p. 229. 



268 PERSECUTION. 

faith. There, as well as in England, attendance 
at the reformed worship was compulsory, and 
the celebration of Mass, or the being present at 
it, exposed priest and people to heavy punish- 
ment, even to the penalties of high treason. To 
employ a Catholic teacher was rigorously forbid- 
den, and to send one's children abroad for edu- 
cation, was a heinous offence, subjecting the 
parent to loss of property, the child, if he did 
not return within a limited time, to outlawry, 
forfeiture of estate, and other severe penalties. 
An apostate son could drive his aged parents, 
and his brothers and sisters, from their home. 
These are among the least of the grievances 
which pressed down to the earth our faithful 
ancestors. All this has passed away. To whom 
should we be grateful? ITot surely to the 
Church of England or of Ireland, whose prelates, 
with some rare exception, such as Bathurst of 
Norwich, and Watson of Landaff, steadily and 
strenuously to the last moment supported the 
penal laws. Your own sentiments and disposi- 
tions are not questionable. You assert that 
"England could not exercise her Christian 
liberty, nor hope to preserve it, if she did not 
regard the Pope as the enemy of the State, as 
well as of the Church."* This is, doubtless, in- 
tended as a hint to those, who, under the pre- 
text of opposing foreigners, are laboring to dis- 

* Vol. ii. p. 389. 



PERSECUTION. 269 

francliise Catholics, in this land of freedom, and 
accordingly you, although yourself of foreign 
birth, have appeared in their ranks, stimulating 
them in the career of intolerance. 

In the United States, at least. Catholics are 
without reproach on this head. The colony of 
Maryland, founded by a nobleman of our com- 
munion, gave the first example of freedom of 
conscience to an extent at that time considera- 
ble, namely, for all who professed to believe 
in our Lord Jesus Christ. Since the achieve- 
ment of our national independence, we have 
never manifested the slightest disposition to 
disturb the harmony which was provided for 
by guaranteeing to all equal rights, irrespec- 
tive of religious difierences. In all the relations 
of life, we have shown practical liberality and 
charity, without compromising any principle of 
our religion. Yet you would proscribe us, "be- 
cause," to borrow the language of Edmund 
Burke, "in contradiction to experience and com- 
mon sense, you think proper to imagine that 
our principles are subversive of common human 
society."* If the example of Massachusetts, 
which has just now declared us ineligible to 
office, be followed by other States, and the great 
principle, which has hitherto been our boast as 
a nation, that conscience should be free, be 
abandoned, it requires no prophet to foretel that 

* Letter to Sir Hercules Langrislie, M. P. 
23* 



270 PERSECUTION. 

the various sects wliich now combine to pro- 
scribe us, will contend among tbemselves for the 
mastery, and that dissensions and strife will 
succeed the peace and harmony which our social 
relations have hitherto presented. I venture not 
to look further into futurity, lest I be a prophet 
of evil ; but I am consoled by the reflection that 
if the grand fabric of our liberties be shaken by 
any civil convulsion, Catholics will, at least, be 
guiltless of having contributed, even in a remote 
degree, to the catastrophe. 



LETTER XX. 

in |mh VIII. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

TOU have become, to a great extent, the 
apologist of Henry Vm. ; but never did 
you undertake a cause more desperate. You 
labor to show that he acted from scruples of 
conscience in regard to the validity of his mar- 
riage with Catherine ; and in disregard of all 
history, you maintain that his passion for Anne 
Boleyn was not the cause of his revolt against 
the authority of the Holy See. It is scarcely 
necessary to enter into the details by which you 
endeavor to support your first position, since, as 
Sir James Mackintosh writes, no trace can be 
found of such scruples before the year 1527, 
when the parties had been more than seventeen 
years united in wedlock.* If, at this day, you 
yourself were consulted as to the existence of 
any divine law, obligatory on Christians, for- 
bidding marriage with the wife of a deceased 

* History of England, p. 149. 



272 ON HENRY VIII. 

brother, I presume you would not hesitate to 
give a negative reply. Such marriages are fre- 
quent among the various sects, and are con- 
tracted occasionally even by ministers. The 
law of Leviticus regarded the Jews only, and 
was limited by the exception of the case of a 
brother dying without issue. The scruples of 
Henry were simultaneous with his affection for 
Anne Boleyn, according to the same historian ; 
and his whole conduct in pursuit of the divorce 
was, as Tytler avows, "marked by hypocrisy, 
selfishness, and a fixed determination to gratify 
his passions."* The artifices employed to ob- 
tain a favorable answer from the Universities, 
are well known ; and the bribes which were 
lavished, are matters of record.f 

You infer from the fact that Josephine was 
set aside by Napoleon, that Catherine might 
have been discarded by Henry, without for- 
feiture of the communion of the Church ; and 
you discover no difference in the cases, unless 
that the rights of Catherine were supported by 
her nephew Charles V., whilst Josephine stood 
unprotected. Yet the marriage of Josephine 
had taken place irregularly, in times of confu- 
sion and disorder, which occasioned strong 
doubts of its validity. That of Catherine was 
celebrated with solemnity by the express au- 

^ Life of Henry VIII. p. 242. 

t See Burnet, 1 Rec. 2, xxxviii. ; Strype, App. vol. v. pp. 476- 
479. 



ON HENRY VIII. 273 

thority of the Church. Besides, the Pope never 
sanctioned the divorce of Josephine, which he 
could not effectually oppose at the time at 
which it was declared. It is unnecessary to in- 
quire how far Clement may have been influenced 
by the fear of Charles Y. It is known that he 
cherished special affection for Henry ; and if 
he did not yield to his importunity, it is fair to 
ascribe it to those considerations of justice and 
right which become the chief Bishop of the 
Church. You contend that he, in fact, did yield, 
and that he authorized Henry to marry any other 
woman whom he pleased, even although the re- 
lationship should be like that on which the plea 
for divorce was grounded, provided it were not 
the same precisely ; but you mistake a condi- 
tional dispensation, which was to take effect 
only in the contingency of the divorce being 
pronounced by the legate, after cognizance of 
the cause, for an absolute and unqualified con- 
cession. The envoys of Henry presented to 
Clement, at Orvieto, two documents for his 
signature, which, with some reluctance, he 
attached to them ; one of them, empowering 
Wolsey as legate to hear the case, the other dis- 
pensing Henry, if the result were in his favor, 
from other impediments which were believed to 
exist in respect to Anne. Clement also was re- 
ported to have said, that if Henry felt assured 
that his marriage with Catherine was null, his 
shortest way to bring the matter to an issue, 



274 ON HENRY VIII. 

was to marry another woman, and then let the 
validity of this second contract be tried. This 
may have been no more than an intimation, 
that the Pope did not believe him to be sincere. 
Heylin, your own historian, says : " This king be- 
ing violently hurried with the transport of some 
private affections, and finding that the Pope 
appeared the greatest obstacle to his desires, he 
first divested him by degrees of that supremacy 
which had been challenged and enjoyed by his 
predecessors for some ages past, and finally ex- 
tinguished his authority in the realm of Eng- 
land."* Burnet concurs in this view: "When 
Henry began his reformation, his design seemed 
to have been, in the whole progress of these 
changes, to terrify the Court of Rome, and 
force the Pope into a compliance with what he 
desired, "t 

You argue that the separation was not caused 
by the refusal of Clement to grant the divorce, 
since it took place before the adverse decision 
was known in England. It is true that when 
the Act of Parliament which separated England 
from the Holy See, received the Royal assent, 
the final judgment had not been reported; but 
it was already anticipated, and all hope of suc- 
cess had vanished. On the 20th March, 1534, 
the Act passed ; on 23d March, sentence was 
pronounced at Rome. Despair drove the dis- 

* Preface to History of the Reformation, f Preface, vol. i. 



ON HENRY VIII. 275 

appointed suitor to retaliate by acts of insub- 
ordination and revolt. 

You represent all the English bisbops but 
Fisher, and all the distinguished laymen except 
More, as favorable to the divorce, but history 
attests the contrary. Cardinal Wolsey himself, 
who lent his services to have the matter can- 
vassed, and promoted, if the case admitted it, 
was never satisfied as to its lawfulness, and often 
employed remonstrance to dissuade the prince 
from the prosecution of his design, as on his 
death-bed he assured Kyngston, "I do assure 
you I have often kneeled before him, sometimes 
for three hours together, to persuade him from 
his appetite, and could not prevail."* His dis- 
grace was brought on by his determination to 
judge justly, without regard to the royal incli- 
nation. The University of Cambridge was 
opposed to it, although by great management a 
favorable answer was obtained, clogged, how- 
ever, with a condition which was thought to 
vitiate it altogether.! Of Oxford, Tytler says, 
that "the decision could not be considered as al- 
together unbiassed and impartial. "J The Bishop 
of Bayonne states "that few of their divines could 
be induced to pronounce in favor of the King."§ 
The sense of the nation was evidently against 
the divorce, and the people hesitated not to de- 
clare, that whosoever should marry the Princess 

* Cavendish, p. 535. f Burnet, 1 Rec. xxxii. pp. 125, 127. 
X Tytler, p. 299. § Apud Le Grand, iii. 205. 



276 ON HENRY VIII. 

Mary, Catherine's daughter, would become the 
rightful King of England on the demise of 
Henry ; the nobles, says Le Grand, thought the 
same, if they were silent on the subject.* 
Cardinal Pole writes to Henry : "In the begin- 
ning, your cause, together with all its patrons, 
was exploded in all the schools of your own 
kingdom."t Soaraes states that " the clergy had 
become obnoxious to the King, because they 
were generally unfavorable to his divorce. "J 

Sir Henry Spelman does not hesitate to ascribe 
the determination of Henry to a penal judgment. 
"Like Saul, forsaken of God, he falls from one 
sin to another. Queen Catherine (the wife of 
his bosom for twenty years), must now be put 
away, the marriage declared void."§ That he 
should have found men to pander to his passion, 
by maintaining the invalidity of the marriage, is 
not a matter of surprise ; that others in greater 
number withheld the expression of their oppo- 
sition, may be easily imagined ; but there is not 
a shadow of proof for asserting that the free and 
unbiassed judgment of the clergy, sustained him 
in his effort to loose the sacred tie. 

You say that "no earthly policy can possibly 
account for Henry's course. It was the work of 
Divine Providence, who raised up this man of 
energy and passion to prepare the way for the 



* Thompson's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 91. f F. Ixxvii. 

J Vol. i. p. 279. § De non temerandis eccksiis. Preface. 



ON HENRY VIII. 277 

restoration of His truth, in mercy to mankind."* 
Every historian, Protestant as well as Catholic, 
has pointed out the policy which led this prince 
step hy step to the fatal gulf. His passion for 
Anne Boleyn was the spring of the whole move- 
ment. As long as he cherished hope of obtaining 
the sanction of the Pope for abandoning Cathe- 
rine, he did not think of resisting his authority ; 
but finding himself baffled, he had recourse 
to intimidation. Acting under the advice of 
Thomas Cromwell, by the disgrace of "Wolsey, 
and the penalties of the statute of provisors, he 
terrified the clergy into an acknowledgment of 
his new title of " Protector and Supreme Head 
of the Church of England," qualified,, however, 
by them, in order to reconcile their consciences 
to its admission, by the clause, "as far as the 
law of Christ will allow." Tytler records the 
opposition and protests of several prelates, when 
Henry insisted on the omission of this qualifica- 
tion. Tunstal, Bishop of Durham, procured a 
Bull of translation from Rome, without being 
prosecuted according to statute — " a proof that 
the King's mind was yet in a state of irresolu- 
tion, and that probably, at this moment, his 
purpose was rather to intimidate, than absolutely 
to separate from the Roman See."t Even when, 
in January, 1532, the payment of annates was 
forbidden, " a clause in the Act gave it the air of 
intimidation. It was enacted that the King be 

* Vol. i. p. 52. ' t Tytler, p. 313. 

24 



278 ON HENRY VIII. 

empowered, at any time before Easter, 1533, or 
before the next session of Parliament, to declare, 
by letters patent, whether any, or what of the 
provisions of this Act should be carried into 
effect, l^one who considered this clause, could 
doubt that the King's principal object in pro- 
curing its insertion, was to overawe the Court of 
Rome by means of the discretionary power left in 
his hands."* In January, 1533, another Act was 
passed, declaring the King supreme head of the 
Church of England, but containing a proviso 
" which suspended its execution till midsummer, 
and enabled the King on or before that day to 
repeal it ; probably adopted with some remaining 
hope thatit might have terrors enough to coun- 
tervail those which were inspired by the im- 
perial armies." t Mackintosh imagined that 
fear, rather than a sense of daty, swayed the 
councils of the Pontiff. Henry, according to 
the testimony of Gardiner, twice seriously 
thought of returning to unity ; but these visi- 
tations of grace were resisted, and the unhappy 
man, whose work against Luther obtained from 
Leo X. the title of "Defender of the Faith," 
which is still borne by the Sovereign, died out of 
the communion of the Church, having to answer 
to God for one of the worst schisms that ever 
tried the strength of this Divine institution. I 
agree with you that Divine Providence raised 

• Soaraes's Hist, of Reform, vol. i. pp. 290, 295. 
I Mackintosh's Hist, of England, vol. ii. p. 174. 



ON HENRY VIII. 279 

him up; but only as it raised up Pharao, to 
show to the world how powerless are the machi- 
nations of Princes against the counsels of God. 
With apparent complacency you state that 
Bishop Fisher and Chancellor More suffered as 
traitors. If you had explained wherein their 
treason ^consisted, your readers would have been 
better able to judge of their titles to respect and 
veneration. Fisher, who was eighty years of 
age, during his whole life had been devoted to 
religion, and distinguished by his attachment to 
his sovereigns, Henry YIL, whose councillor he 
had been, and his son, the eighth Henry. His 
learning was a source of pride to the monarch, 
who adopted as his own work the defence of 
the Seven Sacraments against Luther, which is 
thought to have been the production of Fisher's 
pen. He had never faltered in his allegiance. 
When accused for not having disclosed the 
visionary dreams of Catharine Barton, who had 
foretold the King's death, he gave a satisfactory 
excuse, that he knew that the King was aware 
of them from other sources. Yet on this pretext 
he was found guilty of misprision of treason, 
despoiled of his estate, and sentenced to im- 
prisonment. When he had escaped the storm 
by a sacrifice of three hundred pounds, he was 
called on to swear to support the succession, as 
regulated by a special Act passed by order of 
Henry, which he freely consented to do ; but the 
oath presented to him contained a declaration of 
the invalidity of Henry's first marriage, and the 



280 ON HENRY VIII. 

validity of the second, as also a disclaimer of all 
foreign authority, even spiritual, in the realm of 
England. To this his conscience was invincihly 
opposed, and for no other crime the hoary 
prelate was cast into a dungeon, and left to 
languish there with scarcely the necessary sup- 
port of life, for above a year, thence to be 
dragged to the scaflbld, and perish as a traitor. 
He died, however, with the serenity, fortitude, 
and joy of a martyr, having dressed as for a 
festival, and answered his servant, who expressed 
surprise at his care in dressing : " Dost thou not 
know that this is my wedding day?" At his 
last moments he declared most truly that he 
died for the faith of Christ's Holy Catholic 
Church. Soames says: "Bishop Fisher is a 
martyr to their cause, of whom the Roman 
Catholics have good reason to be proud."* 
Mackintosh describes him as " a pious minister, 
of extreme simplicity of life, and sweetness of 
temper, and as an indefatigable and enthusiastic 
restorer of learning, worthy to be had in all 
honorable remembrance. "f 

Sir Thomas More, whom also you are pleased 
to class with traitors, was guilty of no greater 
crime than the venerable Bishop of Eochester. 
He had cautiously abstained from uttering any- 
thing disrespectful to his Sovereign, but faithfully 
resisted every effort to induce him to take the ob- 
noxious oath. After lingering in prison for a 

♦ Vol. ii. pp. 32, 36. t'^^ol. ii. pp. 177, 179. 



ON HENRY VITI. 281 

year, he was brought to trial on the charge of 
treason, pursuant to an Act recently passed 
which created a new kind of treason, that 
of doing anything by writing or act which was 
to the slander, disturbance or prejudice of the 
marriage with the Lady Anne. The amount 
of the testimony given by a law officer of the 
crown, who had visited him in prison, with a 
view to elicit some expression which might serve 
for his condemnation, was, that " the^ statute was 
a two-edged sword ; for if he spoke against it, he 
should be the cause of the death of his body ; 
and if he assented to it, he should purchase the 
death of his soul." On this ground he was 
found guilty, and sufiered as a traitor, although 
hy special favor, beheading was substituted for 
the ordinary punishment. Thus perished the 
first lay Chancellor of England, a man of great 
learning, sweet manners, eminent piety, and un- 
faltering devotion to his Sovereign, in all things 
consistent with the Divine law. Cheerfully, 
joyfally, he met death. The butchery of 
these two eminent men marks Henry as one 
of the most infamous and cruel tyrants who 
ever abused the sovereign power. The Eng- 
lish schism, of which he was the author, was 
begim in lust, and cemented in blood. To pre- 
tend that it was provoked by excesses on the 
part of the Church, or that it was directed to 
restore the primitive order of church govern- 
ment, or that it was accomplished by the free 

24* 



282 ON HENRY VIII. 

action of the ecclesiastical authorities of Eng- 
land, is to falsify all history. Its rise and pro- 
gress are plainly traced to the worst of human 
passions. 

You had better utterly abandon the defence 
of a monster, in whom lust and cruelty struggled 
for the ascendency. The unfortunate Anne 
Boleyn soon experienced his vengeance, when 
Jane Seymour had won his affection. On the 
day of her execution he dressed in white, went 
a hunting, and the next day took Jane to his 
bed as a wedded wife. He afterwards put aside 
Anne of Cleves, who was accused of no crime, 
and ordered Catharine Howard, another of his 
wives, to the scaffold. Truly did Sir James 
Mackintosh say, that "Henry approached as 
nearly to the ideal of perfect wickedness as the 
infirmities of human nature will allow."* Sir 
Henry Spelman, after enumerating his wives, 
says: "Here's wives enough to have peopled 
another Canaan, had he had Jacob's blessing ; 
but his three last are childless, and the children 
of the two first are, by statute, declared illegiti- 
mate, and not inheritable to the crown." " They 
all successively sway his sceptre, and all die 
childless, and his family is extinct, and like 
Herostratus, his name not mentioned but with 
his crimes, "t 

The persecutions carried on by Henry YHI., 
and his abettors, were not directed against the 

* Vol. ii. p. 204. f De non teraerandis ecclesiis. Preface. 



ON HENRY VIII. 283 

enemies of order and society, but against un- 
offending men, whose only crime was their 
adherence to the ancient faith. Three Carthusian 
priors, a monk of Sion, and two others, one of 
whom was a secular priest, were charged with 
high treason, and through the violence and 
threats of Thomas Cromwell, found guilty by a 
reluctant jury, who avowed their unwillingness 
to give such a verdict. Prior Houghton, at the 
place of execution, declared his entire devotion 
to the King, but that he feared God, whom he 
should offend by abjuring the doctrine of the 
Church. They were all, nevertheless, hung, cut 
down before death, disembowelled and quartered 
in the most shocking manner. In expiring, 
Houghton cried : " Most holy Lord Jesus, have 
mercy upon me in this hour." "Whilst in 
prison they were horribly tortured, being each 
fastened to an upright post by means of iron 
chains drawn tight round their necks and thighs, 
without being once loosened' during the whole 
fortnight of their imprisonment. ' ' * Three other 
Carthusians, for refusing to take the oath of Su- 
premacy, were executed soon after. ISTine or 
ten more were put in such close confinement, 
that they all died but one, who was executed. 
Two Carthusians, at York, were put to death for 
the same cause. Fiffcy Franciscans perished 
from the rigor of their imprisonment, the rest 
were banished. Fourteen Catholics suffered 

* Waterworth, Lecture ii. on the Reformation, note. He cites 
Str -pe, Eccles. Mem. vol. i. p. 314. 



284 ON HENRY VIII. 

subsequently for denying the King's supremacy 
in ecclesiastical concerns, whilst ten Protestants 
were also sent to the stake. On one occasion, 
"to exhibit his impartiality, as head of the 
Church, the King commanded them to be placed 
together in pairs. Catholic and Lutheran, on the 
same hurdle, and thus dragged fi'om the Tower 
to Smithfield, where the assertors of the Papal 
authority were hanged as traitors, and their 
companions consumed at the stake as here- 
tics."* 

In extenuation of the cruelty of Henry, you 
say, "it was a small matter in comparison with 
the tortures and death inflicted by your old In- 
quisition, and universally sanctioned throughout 
Europe, previous to the Eeformation." I know 
of no atrocity to equal it. The Inquisition saved 
from death the penitent heretic twice, and if in 
the third instance it delivered the convict to the 
civil authorities, it was because its power of 
pardon was limited. The standard of its judg- 
ments was not the caprice of any individual 
potentate or ecclesiastic, but the faith of the 
Universal Church. Henry inflicted death on 
peaceable men, who retained the faith which he 
himself professed, because they would not re- 
cognize in him a supremacy in things spiritual, 
which had never been claimed by any of his pre- 
decessors. You assert that it was "the same 

* Tytler, p. 428. 



ON HENRY VIII. 285 

supremacy whicli was exercised by the Christian 
emperors for more than ten centuries."* What 
power the Arian Emperors may have claimed 
or exercised, I care not ; but it is certain that 
Catholic princes acknowledged that they had no 
power in things spiritual, professing themselves 
obedient children of the Church, and deeming 
it a duty and a privilege to support her decrees 
by their authority. St. Ambrose praises Con- 
stantine for not interfering in the case of two 
bishops of Moesia (Bulgaria), which he referred 
to their colleagues in the episcopate : " He would 
not wrong the priests ; he appointed the bishops 
themselves to be the judges."t The celebrated 
Osius, Bishop of Corduba, nobly resisted the 
attempt of the Arian Emperor Constantius, to 
dictate to the bishops. "Do not meddle with 
church affairs, or send us mandates in regard to 
them, but be content to learn from us. God has 
given you the empire. He has charged us with 
the interests of the Church. "J Certainly no 
Catholic King claimed the title or power ascribed 
to Henry in the Act of Parliament, which re- 
cognizing him as "supreme head on earth of 
the Church of England," granted him "full 
power to correct and amend any errors, heresies, 
abuses, &c., which, by any manner ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction might be reformed or redressed."§ 

* Vol. i. 37. f Cone. Aquil. col. 826, torn. i. col. Hard. 

J Apnd Atlianas. Ep. ad solit. vitam agentes. 
§ Mackintosh Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 175. 



286 ON HENRY VIII. 

The savage cruelty of the monster appeared 
particularly in Ms sending to the scaffold his 
nearest female relative, the Countess of Salis- 
bury, in her seventieth year, accused of no 
crime whatever, merely to avenge himself of her 
son, Cardinal Pole, who had incurred his displea- 
sure by accepting promotion in theHoman Court. 

You labor to show that neither the prince, 
nor his abettors, had need of having recourse to 
violent measures for acquiring the property of 
the various Orders, since even Wolsey had been 
authorized to suppress forty small monasteries, 
for the execution of a favorite project, the en- 
dowment of two colleges. But what Pope would 
authorize the wanton and general plunder of all 
the monasteries ? Sir William Dugdale is an 
unexceptionable witness, that reform was only 
a pretext for spoliation, in order to enrich the 
coffers of the King and of his accomplices ; "It 
was not the strict and regular lives, or anything 
that may be said in behalf of the monasteries, 
that could prevent their ruin thus approaching. 
So great an aim had the King to make himself 
thereby glorious, and many others no less hopes 
to be enriched in a considerable manner."* 
The strictest communities, whose good conduct 
was acknowledged by all, fell under the general 
ban. Among them, " the monks of the Charter- 
house, in the suburbs of London, were committed 

* History of Warwickshire, p, 801. 



ON HENRY VIII. 287 

to Newgate, where, with hard and barbarous 
usage, ^ye of them died, and five more lay at 
the point of death." The Royal commissioners 
charged the Abbots with robbing the Church, 
if they presumed to secrete any of its ornaments 
irom them. Under this pretence, " the Abbot 
of Glastonbury, with two of his monks, being 
condemned to death, was drawn from "Wells 
upon a hurdle, then hanged upon the hill called 
Tor, near Glastonbury, his head set upon the 
Abbey gate, and his quarters disposed of to 
Wells, Bath, Ilchester, and Bridgewater. J^or 
did the Abbots of Colchester and Reading fare 
much better, as they that will consult the story 
of that time may see. And for farther terror to 
the rest, some priors and other ecclesiastical 
persons, who spake against the King's supre- 
macy, a thing then somewhat uncouth, were 
condemned as traitors and executed. ' ' This is the 
testimony of Sir William Dugdale. The means 
which Henry employed to get parliamentary 
sanction for his rapacity, were such as we might 
expect. Finding that the Bill stuck in the 
lower house, he summoned the Commons to 
meet him in his gallery, where he made them 
wait for hours, before he made his appearance. 
On presenting himself, he addressed them scorn- 
fully : " I hear that my bill will not pass ; but I 
will have it pass, or I will have some of your 
heads." This determined the loyal Commons 
to support the measure. It would be easy to 



288 ON HENRY VIII. 

swell this volume, by details of the plundering of 
the monasteries and churches ; but it is alto- 
gether unnecessary, since the fact is notorious. 
"Whoever will take in hand the work of Sir 
Henry Spelman, will see numberless proofs of 
it ; as also awful instances of the punishment 
which overtook the sacrilegious plunderers. It 
was somewhat bold in you, sir, in the face of 
history, to maintain that the Eeformers were 
influenced by no love of plunder, but by zeal 
for pure religion ! 



LETTER XXI. 

Right Reverend Sir: 

YOU have undertaken to be the apologist of 
Cranmer more decidedly than of Henry. 
I^otwithstanding your resolution to be kind 
and charitable, you have penned this sentence 
against Dr. Milner, for presenting a most true 
picture of this hero of the Reformation. '^ The 
best excuse I can frame for this wanton defamer 
is to be found in the doctrine of that Jesuit 
society, of which I presume he was a member. 
For thus we find it laid down by some of their 
divines : * It is only a venial sin, to calumniate 
and accuse of false crimes, in order to ruin the 
credit of those who speak ill of us.' "* Dr. Milner 
was no Jesuit, nor has this illustrious society 
ever held any such principles — the assertion of 
Pascal, the Jansenist satirist, to the contrary 
notwithstanding. You should pause before you 
speak of "those atrocious maxims of Jesuit 

* Vol. i. p. 388. 
25 



290 ON CRANMER. 

morality, whicli Pascal so admirably exposed."* 
Who tlien is the wanton defamer ? The liber- 
tinism charged on Cranmer, by Dr. Milner, is 
attested by every historian, and should meet no 
countenance from you, who are so severe on 
clerical delinquency. It is certain that after his 
priesthood, he contracted marriage secretly, or 
lived in concubinage with the niece of Osiander, 
whom he contrived to smuggle into England, 
and afterward sent back, when Henry, in the 
Six Articles, enforced sacerdotal celibacy under 
threat of capital punishment ; but his base hypo- 
crisy and cruelty, deserve still greater execra- 
tion. He approved of the condemnation of John 
Fryth and Andrew Hewet to the stake, for not 
believing " the very corporal presence of Christ 
within the host and sacrament of the altar, "f 
which it is probable that he himself at the time 
disbelieved. Henry ordered him, with three 
other prelates, to convert or execute certain 
German Anabaptists, who sought to propagate 
their tenets. One man and woman were publicly 
burnt alive, besides fourteen others, who had been 
previously executed. His name, as well as that of 
Latimer, was affixed to the death-warrant of Joan 
Boacher and Yon Parr. I am willing to pass your 
extravagant eulogiums of Edward VI., whose 
humanity or conscientiousness I honor, as mani- 
fested in liis reluctance to sign the death-warrant 

♦ Vol. ii. p. 29. 

t Cranmer\s Letter to Hawkins, Aroheol. xviii. p. 81. 



ON CRANMER. 291 

of Joan Boaclier ; but what must we think of 
Cranmer, who used all his efforts to overcome 
this feeling?* "Cranmer himself confessed," 
says Foxe, " that he had never so much to do 
in all his life, as to cause the King to put to his 
hand, saying that he would lay all the charge 
thereof upon Cranmer before God."t The poor 
youth, trained and surrounded by men of false 
principles, is to be pitied, rather than condemned. 
Can you respect Cranmer who under Henry not 
only concealed his own sentiments, but became 
his pliant agent in condemning others to the 
stake, for holding the same views ? Can you 
account for his lending himself to every caprice 
of the monarch, even with the sacrifice of those 
who co-operated with him in the work of Re- 
form ? Anne Boleyn was his patron and sup- 
port ; yet no sooner had she incurred the dis- 
pleasure of her capricious lord, than Cranmer 
virtually prejudged her, offering his services to 
the prince, and declared null, from the begin- 
ning, the marriage which he himself had sanc- 
tioned. With the same promptness, he dis- 
solved the marriage of Henry with Anne of 
Cleves, for no other reason than the disgust 
which the prince had conceived of her. As his 
agent, he obtained from Catharine Howard, 
under a solemn promise that her life should be 
spared, a confession of her incontinence before 

* Burnet, Ref. ii. 179. t Foxe, 1179. 



292 ON CRANMER. 

marriage ; notwithstanding which she died on 
the scaffold, without effort on his part to obtain 
her pardon. 

He appears to have been, in principle, a Pro- 
testant all the time ; yet he accepted the office 
of Archbishop, and by his proctor at Rome, swore 
obedience to the Pope, and accepted the Articles 
of Catholic faith, which pledges he gave per- 
sonally again at his consecration. After some 
demurring, he co-operated with Henry in en- 
forcing his Six Articles, even with the penalty 
of death. Under Edward, he began by incul- 
cating the Real Presence, and cautioning the 
people against those who denied it ; as he him- 
self did within a few months afterwards.* 

You seriously undertake to justify the manifest 
perjury contained in the solemn profession of 
faith and promise of obedience, made by a man 
who in his heart disbelieved, and who was de- 
termined to revolt against the Papal authority. 
A previous protest made by him in the Chapter- 
house, before notaries, that he did not intend to 
bind himself to anything contrary to the law of 
God, prejudicial to the rights and prerogatives of 
the King, or prohibitory of such reforms in the 
Church of England as he might deem useful, 
appears to you to warrant his public act, where- 
by he swore, without qualification, to render 
obedience to the Papal mandates, and keep the 

* See Soames, iii. p. 72. 



ON CRANMER. 293 

Catholic faith inviolate. I must, however, state 
your pleas in his behalf : 

First, you refer to your extracts from Fleury's 
Ecclesiastical History '*for multiplied proofs that 
Cranmer was under no necessity of making such 
a protest at all, because the prelates of Rome 
had given the same construction to the oath for 
ages together, without any doubt or hesitation." 
If so, why did he make it ? Truly, at all times 
it was understood that the obedience promised 
by bishops to the Pontiff was not designed to 
interfere with their civil allegiance, and the pro- 
viso in the oath : salvo meo ordine — without pre- 
judice to my rank — might admit this interpreta- 
tion. But w^hat man of conscience could swear 
obedience to the spiritual authority of the chief 
Bishop, with the avowed intention of refusing 
it, in order to serve the caprice of his King, in 
things not appertaining to the civil order ? Yet 
you defend this trifling with oaths by the minis- 
ters of religion. 

Secondly, you " refer to the cases in which the 
cardinals took ground against the Popes, be- 
cause in their opinion the Popes had gone as- 
tray, and the best interests of the Church 
required their deposition. In all such cases there 
was the same oath to the Pope, and it was ne- 
cessary to break that oath before they could even 
confer about the calling of a Council." "We 
are not now concerned w^ith the interpretation 
of an oath, to determine whether extraordinary 

25* 



294 ON CRANMER. 

circumstances may occur, in which a departure 
from its letter may be justifiable ; though for 
myself I hold to the strictest acceptation of the 
words ; but what has this to do with the act of 
a man, who, at the time of taking the oath, pro- 
tests in private that he does not take it in its 
avowed and established signification ? 

Thirdly, you "refer to the construction of 
the same oath by all the other bishops in the 
reign of Henry YIII., since there was not one 
amongst them, save Fisher, who did not go with 
the King against the Pope." The forced acqui- 
escence of bishops, fearing the fate of their mar- 
tyred colleague, is no proof of the construction 
which they, put upon their oath, much less can 
it justify the hypocrisy of a public oath, and a 
previous protest to the contrary. It is, however 
untrue that they acquiesced. 

Fourthly, you refer to the resistance made by 
all the English Romanists (you mean Catholics) 
" against the Papal Bull of Sixtus V., in which he 
undertook to depose Queen Elizabeth." All 
these examples are most unhappily chosen, as 
they afibrd no parallel to the case. The English 
Catholics did not publicly swear what they se- 
cretly abjured, but they acted under a sense of 
duty to the acknowledged sovereign of the king- 
dom, whose right to their allegiance they con- 
sidered inviolable, whilst she actually occupied 
the throne, with the assent of the legislature 
and people. 



ON CRANMER. 295 

Lastly, you *' refer to the established maxims 
of human rights, on which all our patriots are 
accustomed to defend the American revolution." 
Had the signers of the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence publicly sworn allegiance to the British 
crown, and at the same time secretly protested 
that they did not mean to observe it, I should be 
at a loss how to reconcile their conduct with 
honor or truth. Every oath is taken in its ob- 
vious and well-known acceptation, and all de- 
vices to evade obligations which it manifestly 
implies, are fraudulent and criminal. 

You call the protest of Cranmer a public act, 
because it was done before notaries and wit- 
nesses ; but as it was done privately, whilst the 
oath was taken publicly before the altar, in the 
solemn circumstance of receiving Episcopal con- 
secration, and as it was without the knowledge 
of the Pope, or his delegate, it cannot be consi- 
dered otherwise than clandestine. The author 
of ISTo. lY. in the Appendix to the 3d vol. of 
Burnet, says: "I wish it could be proved. I 
have two letters (MSS. Latin) of Cardinal Pole 
to the Archbishop Cranmer, in which he charges 
him with having done it only in a private man- 
ner, and brands his proceeding therein with such 
expressions as I am unwilling to transcribe." An 
oath is to be taken in the meaning of him to whom 
it is pledged, as expressed in the words according 
to their acknowledged acceptation ; so that every 
attempt to qualify them, without the knowledge 



296 ON CRANMER. 

of the party interested, must necessarily be 
regarded as deceit aggravated by perjury. 

Your justification of Cranmer's policy on di- 
vorcing the unfortunate Anne Boieyn, at the bid- 
ding of the tyrant, shows your willingness to sus- 
tain him in the discharge of his " official duty,'* 
as you designate it. Your plea for his condemna- 
tion of two heretics to death, and his exertions 
to obtain the signature of the young Edward to 
the warrant for their execution, betrays no great 
aversion to the intolerance of that age, the en- 
tire odium of which you would fain cast on 
the ancient Church, without reflecting on the 
glaring inconsistency of Cranmer, in condemn- 
ing others to death for errors in belief, whilst he 
himself was engaged in the propagation of new 
doctrines. 

Although it was notorious that he had vacil- 
lated and dissembled, he showed no indulgence 
to those who avowed with intrepidit}^ their at- 
tachment to the ancient faith. The Bishops of 
Winchester and London, at his instigation, were 
cast into prison. The Bishop of Durham was 
deprived of his seat at the Council table. Gar- 
diner of Winchester, having been liberated after 
a time, was ordered to preach by the Protector, 
and although he delivered the same doctrine of 
the Mass and Real Presence, which up to that 
time was professed by Cranmer and his fellow 
reformers, he was again thrown into prison, and 



ON CRANMER. 297 

detained there until the end of the reign of Ed- 
ward. 

It is hard to justify Cranmer for putting his 
signature to the death-warrant of Lord Sudely, 
condemned for treason on the accusation of his 
brother, the Protector, without the ordinary 
forms of trial. It had been always forbidden to 
ecclesiastics to concur directly to any execution, 
so that even under the Inquisition this was never 
allowed, the canonical penalty called irregu- 
larity being attached to the act. This case was 
further aggravated by the disregard of the usual 
legal forms, and by the awful circumstance that 
the unhappy victim was accused and condemned 
by his own brother. 

The perjury and treason of Cranmer should 
not be forgotten when his claims to the title of 
martyr are examined. Although he avowed his 
conviction that by signing the instrument of 
Edward, by which the succession was changed, 
he would be guilty of both crimes, yet, after 
some hesitation, caused by fear of the conse- 
quences, he affixed to it his signature. "When 
Mary challenged his obedience, he replied to her 
insultingly, because she was apparently unable 
to establish her right by force of arms. Almost 
the only bold act of his life, was a scurrilous 
publication denying that he had any share in 
causing the Mass to be restored in the Canter- 
bury Cathedral after the accession of Mary to 
the throne. His crimes against religion were 



298 ON CRANMER. 

put forward at his trial, because lie being an 
ecclesiastic they were matters of cognizance 
for bis judges ; but his treason was, no doubt, 
uppermost in the mind of the sovereign, as Cole, 
in preaching before his execution intimated, 
" There are other reasons which have moved the 
Queen and Council to order the execution of the 
individual present." 

To eulogize a man who never in his life 
showed consistency even in the maintenance of 
error, requires much boldness as well as in- 
genuity, but to justify his vacillation and hypo- 
crisy, his repeated prevarications under the fear 
of death, and his shameless apostacy, when all 
hope of escape had fled, — to proclaim suclf a man 
"a noble martyr," is, to borrow your language, 
outrageous efirontery. Cranmer, guilty by his 
own avowal of perjury and treason, as well as of 
heresy, was most justly consigned to a dungeon, 
and left there for eighteen months to reflect on 
his crimes, and prepare to expiate them by his 
death. A commission was issued to the Bishop of 
Gloucester, and two other ecclesiastics, to try 
him for being twice married whilst professing 
celibacy, for having denied the supremacy of the 
Pope, to whom he had sworn obedience, and 
having blasphemed the Eucharist. When found 
guilty, and sentenced to be degraded and exe- 
cuted, he signed seven successive instruments of 
retraction, in order to save his life. " The sixth, 
which was very prolix, contained an acknowledg- 



ON CRANMER. 299 

ment of all the forsaken and detested errors and 
superstitions of Rome, an abhorrence of his own, 
and a vilifying of himself, as a persecutor, a 
blasphemer, a mischief-maker, nay, and as the 
wickedest wretch that lived. And this was not 
all, but after they had thus humbled and mortified 
the miserable man wdth recantations and sub- 
scriptions, submissions and abjurations, putting 
words into his mouth which his heart abhorred ; 
by all this drudgery they would not permit him 
to redeem his unhappy life, but prepared him a 
renunciatory oration to pronounce publicly in 
St. Mary's Church, immediately before he w^as 
led forth to burning."* This does not show 
that hope of pardon was really held out to him ; 
but even were this the case, it could not ex- 
tenuate his hypocrisy in penning documents 
expressing sentiments foreign from his mind. 
From the unsatisfactory nature of the five first 
retractions, it is manifest that he himself com- 
posed them, as even probably the sixth. His 
subscription made them all his own. At the 
stake he described them as " written for fear of 
death." He cherished hope, even when led to 
execution, but carried with him, concealed in his 
breast, a retraction of all his previous retractions, 
with a view to mortify and disappoint the 
authorities, in case mercy were not extended to 
him. This is the heroism which elicits your 

• ^ Strype, Eccl. Mem. vol. iv. c. 30, pp. 40r)-40G. 



300 ON CRANMER. 

applause. You, sir, who are so horror-stricken 
with the indulgent morality of the Jesuits, vir- 
tually adopt a foul maxim, unjustly imputed 
to them, and plead that "he might begin 
to regard his escape as a kind of duty to the 
truth, and thus if he could only put to sleep the 
suspicions of his persecutors, and gain his 
liberty, he might dedicate his last years to the 
defence and confirmation of the Gospel."* 
Pray, in what Gospel have you learned that evil 
may be done that good may come therefrom? 

The example of Pope Pascal, which you allege 
in extenuation of Cranmer's prevarication, is not 
a case in point. He was sufiering unjust duress 
from the Emperor Henry V., and at the solicita- 
tion of his friends, he compromised some of his 
rights, to obtain his liberty. The concessions 
extorted from him implied the profession of no 
error, although the pretensions of the Emperor 
to control the Church, by giving to her prelates 
the ensigns of ecclesiastical power, may have 
savored of heresy. In stating with humility the 
violence which he had suffered, and deploring 
his compromise of the rights of his office, he 
satisfied his duty to the Church, whilst in de- 
clining to revoke them, or to punish his oppressor 
by excommunication, he fulfilled abundantly the 
pledges which he had given. The Council of 
Cardinals and Bishops rightly declared that 

• -5^ Vol. i. p. 308. • 



ON CRANMER. 301 

these forced concessions were of no avail, and 
smote with anathema the tyrant who wrung 
them from a prisoner. What resemblance does 
this bear to the hypocrisy of a renegade, who, 
when lingering in a dungeon for repeated 
treasons to his sovereign, feigns conversion, pro- 
fesses his belief in doctrines which at heart he 
repudiates, and when disappointed in this at- 
tempt to deceive, turns back, like a dog to the 
vomit, and to spite his judges, goes to the stake 
blaspheming the mysteries which a while be- 
fore he affected to adore ? 



26 



LETTER XXII. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

YOU have put forward very prominently the 
claims of the Church of England to dis- 
tinct consideration, although you have carefully 
avoided discarding those of the various other 
Protestant sects, of which your Reviewers, not- 
withstanding their extravagant laudations, loudly 
complain. You, indeed, charge Dr. Milner with 
misrepresentation, in stating that she does not 
recognize their orders, on account of their want 
of episcopacy, and that she thus unchurches 
them. I scarcely deem it necessary to vindicate 
him on this head, further than to observe that it 
is notorious she does not allow them to minister 
without ordaining them. Whether Episcopal 
ordination be necessary only for the well-being 
of the Church, or for its mere existence, I 
leave you to settle with your colleagues, whose 
opinions are divided on this subject. Many of 
your ministers rebaptize persons baptized in the 
other sects, regarding the act as null for the 
want of the ministerial character; since the 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 303 

suppression, in 1575, of tlie Rubric allowing lay 
persons to baptize, is deemed equivalent to the 
statement made by Dr. Milner, tbat *'tbe Church 
of England unanimously resolved that it could 
not be performed by any person but a lawful 
minister." You seem very desirous to stand 
well with the various other sects. 

You are naturally anxious to establish an 
origin for the Church of England independent 
of the Roman See ; but unfortunately for you, 
the only ancient tradition worth any notice, 
is that preserved by Venerable Bede, which 
refers it to Pope Eleutherius, in the decline ot 
the second century. It is fair, however, to hear 
you: "First then, Irenaeus, in A. D. 170, speaking 
of the unity of the faith difiused throughout the 
world, enumerates the Churches of Germany, 
the Churches among the Hibernians, and the 
Churches among the Celts." You take the last 
for Britons. Grabe, the learned Protestant 
editor of the works of Irenseus, understands 
them to have been inhabitants of Gaul, about 
Lyons, since the author says of himself: "We 
live among the Celts."* " The south and centre 
of France were known, even in the fifth century, 
by the names of Celtica and Gallia."t Our 
countrymen, "the Hibernians," turn out to be 
Iberians, inhabitants^of Spain. J So far your re- 
searches are a failure. Nor are you more suc- 

* L. 1 Adv. hser. Praef. t Mona Mission, p. 1. 

J L, 1 Adv. hser. c. iii. 



304 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

cessfal in endeavoring to destroy our proofs by 
the testimony of Tertullian, who boasted that 
parts of Britain, which had been inaccessible to 
the Romans, had been subjected to Christ. 
"Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo 
vero subdita." Had you reflected for a few 
moments, you would scarcely have put the 
translation in capitals, and added the observa- 
tion : " There is the positive testimony, that 
however, or by whomsoever, the Church was 
first planted in Britain, which is a matter of 
uncertainty, it was not planted hy a missionary 
from Rome," You have strangely misunderstood 
your author, who contrasts the triumphs of the 
Gospel with the achievements of the Roman 
armies. He does not speak of the country 
whence the missionaries came. His statement, 
made at the close of the second or beginning of 
the third century, harmonizes strictly with the 
traditionary testimony of the English nation, 
recorded by Bede, concerning the conversion of 
the Britons under Eleutherius. 

The origin of the Anglo-Saxon Church, is 
undeniably Roman, the fruit of the apostolic 
labors of the monk Augustin, and the favorite 
object of the solicitude of Pope Gregory. In- 
stead of exulting in the triumph of religion by 
the zeal of the saintly missionary, you declare 
his mission *'a flagrant usurpation," and insinu- 
ate that he employed force to secure success. 
Speaking of the refusal of the Britons to co- 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 305 

operate mtli tlie envoy of Gregory, you say: 
" Augustin left tliem with a menace, which the 
Eomans convert into a prophecy. An army of 
the Anglo-Saxons attacked the Britons, slew 
twelve hundred monks, because they prayed 
against their enemies, and so, after a time, force 
compelled the British Church to submit to the 
authority of Kome. It was a just retribution of 
Providence, when the day of Keformation came, 
that force should break the yoke which force 
imposed."* The reader might suppose that 
Augustin or his companions had suggested these 
sanguinary measures, for the purpose of forcing 
submission. You say elsewhere, that "his (Au- 
gustin's) converts had a hand, before many 
years, in the cruel slaughter of twelve hundred 
British monks at Bangor." Yet history pre- 
sents the facts in a wholly different light. The 
teachings of the missionaries to King Ethelbert 
were, "that the service of Christ ought to be 
voluntary, not by compulsion. "f InTo arms but 
those of the Gospel were employed by them. 
The words of Augustin were uttered as a warn- 
ing of the impending wrath of God; but his 
spirit had fled to rest before the sanguinary 
Ethelfred, King of N'orthumbria, listening only 
to his own wild hatred of the Britons, rushed on 
them, and slew them in great numbers. His 
arms made no converts. The Gospel spread by 

* Vol. ii. p. 28. t Bede, Eccl. Hist. 1. i. c. xxvi. 

26* 



306 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

its own mild influence. The Britons continned 
for a considerable time in the recesses of Wales, 
and it was only gradually and almost imper- 
ceptibly, that their remains were amalgamated 
with the Church of the Anglo-Saxons. There 
is no foundation for asserting that " it was accom- 
plished by the hand of power, through Anglo- 
Saxon domination."* 

The Church of England, at the present day, 
can in no sense be traced to the Britons, since 
Canterbury, the chief see in the new organiza- 
tion under Gregory, is Anglo-Saxon. The 
validity of her claims altogether depends on her 
connection with Rome through Augustin. That 
the succession was maintained down to Cardinal 
Pole is acknowledged, although the heresy and 
schismatical efforts of Cranmer, caused an inter- 
ruption for several years. When Elizabeth came 
to the throne, Canterbury was vacant, and the 
bishops of the other sees, with the exception of 
Kitchin of Landaff, having refused to take the 
oath of supremacy, were deposed, so that all 
their sees were vacant. Elizabeth issued letters 
patent for the consecration of Matthew Parker, 
who is said to have been consecrated accordingly 
by Barlow, assisted by Scory, Coverdale, and 
Hodgkins, on 17th December, 1559. The fact 
of the consecration of Barlow himself, has never 
been proved from any Register, although it is 

* Vol. ii. p. 35. 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 307 

certain that lie was elected bishop, and trans- 
ferred from one see to another, under Henry 
VIII., and that he sat in Parliament in virtue of 
his office. The consecration of Parker has been 
denied, but it is admitted by Dr. Lingard, on 
the authority of the Lambeth Eegister. I have 
not time or disposition to canvass these points, 
which, indeed, I deem unnecessary ; but as all 
the claims of the Church of England turn on the 
valid consecration of Parker, I may be allowed 
to state my conviction, that the form prescribed 
in the Ordinal of Edward YI., and alleged to 
have been used in his case, is altogether void 
and invalid. I know. Right Reverend Sir, that 
this is a delicate topic, on which you are scarcely 
disposed to enter dispassionately, deeming it 
enough to talk "of the utter emptiness and 
folly of the objection," but the impartial Thorn- 
dyke confessed that it had weight and difficulty 
in it.* You claim Dr. Lingard' s admission in 
support of your orders, although he cautiously 
avoided any expression of opinion in regard to 
their validity, confining himself, as became an 
historian, to the statement of the fact of the 
ordination. With the evidence on which he 
relied, I am by no means satisfied ; I care not 
to discuss it, since the examination of the Ordi- 
nal is in my opinion sufficient to decide the 
whole controversy. 

* " Just Weights and Measures." 



308 ON THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND. 

It is known that tlie personal opinion of 
Cranmer was, that bishops were mere officers of 
the crown for ecclesiastical matters ; which, how- 
ever, you say had no place in the system of the 
Church, nor in any of her standard writings. 
Let us examine the Ordinal, which is known to 
have been framed by him. 

The oath of supremacy is a prominent part of 
it. The elect says: "I from henceforth shall 
utterly renounce, refuse, relinquish, and forsake 
the Bishop of Kome, and his authority, power, 
and jurisdiction. And I from henceforth, will 
accept, repute, and take the King's majesty to 
be the only supreme head in earth of the Church 
of England ; and to my cunning, wit, and utter- 
most of my power, without guile, fraud, or 
other undue mean, I will observe, keep, main- 
tain, and defend the whole effects and contents 
of all and singular acts and statutes made and 
to be made within this realm, in derogation, 
extirpation, and extinguishment of the Bishop 
of Eome and of his authority ; and all other acts 
and statutes made, or to be made, in confirma- 
tion and corroboration of the King's power, of 
the supreme head in earth of the Church of 
England." This oath, which is common to all 
the orders, gives them a character of hostility to 
the divine constitution of the Church, by which 
bishops are subject to Peter and his successors, 
and of slavish subjection to the English mo- 
narch. 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 809 

You remark that the elect "was presented to 
be consecrated Archbishop;" but this is not 
enough. It must be well understood and de- 
fined by the rites and prayers, what constitues a 
bishop, or archbishop, since the name was vague 
and indefinite, especially as then employed in 
the Church by law established. If you examine 
the Ordinal, you will find nothing to determine 
its meaning. At the end of the Litany, a prayer 
is said for him, "now called to the work and 
ministry of a bishop ;" but nothing peculiar to 
his office is set forth. In the questions put to 
him, he is asked : " Are you persuaded that you 
be truly called to this ministration, according to 
the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order 
of this realm f " Then he is questioned as to his 
persuasion that the "holy Scriptures contain suf- 
ficiently all doctrine required of necessity for 
eternal salvation," and his determination to 
instruct the people committed to his charge ac- 
cordingly. Then the consecrating prelate asks 
him: "Will you . . . such as be unquiet, disobe- 
dient and criminous within your diocese, correct 
and punish, according to such authority as ye 
have by God's word, and as to you shall he com- 
mitted hy the ordinance of this realm f iN'ot a 
word occurs in all these interrogatories to mark 
the true office of a Christian bishop, they being 
on the contrary, directed to pledge the aspirant to 
exact conformity to the civil laws, which are stated 
to be a source of his authority. The prayer after 



310 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 

the hymn is equally unsatisfactory : * 'Grant, we 
beseech Thee, to this Thy servant, such grace, 
that he may evermore be ready to spread abroad 
Thy Gospel, and glad tidings of reconcilement 
to God, and to use the authority given unto 
him, not to destroy, but to save." 

The Archbishop and Bishops present lay their 
hands upon his head, the Archbishop saying : 
" Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou 
stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by im- 
position of hands ; for God hath not given us 
the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of 
soberness." E'othing here occurs expressive of 
authority ; so that in the solemn act of laying 
on of hands, as well as throughout the whole 
rite, nothing designates the office or character of 
bishop. It is also worthy of remark that the 
assistant prelates do not pronounce the words, 
so that if any of them were validly ordained, as 
was the apostate Archbishop of Spalatro, his pre- 
sence would add no weight to the ceremony. 
Although in our ceremonial the words used in 
that act be simply, "Receive the Holy Ghost;" 
the prayer which immediately follows, deter- 
mines the character of the authority, which is 
also expressed by the delivery of the Episcopal 
ring, and pastoral staff with the mitre, and 
other emblems of jurisdiction. All these were 
wanting in the ordinal of Edward. 

You state that " the essence of ordination con- 
sists in the laying on of hands, and that the 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 311 

other rites are variable." If you mean to as- 
sert that the mere act of imposing hands is suffi- 
cient, without any words to determine the object 
for which it is performed, you oppose the prac- 
tice and teaching of all antiquity. It has always 
been believed that the act must be determined 
by words to a definite object, since otherwise 
confirmation could not be distinguished from 
ordination. Great variety is, indeed, observable 
in ancient Rituals in regard to the accompany- 
ing rites ; which, however, are all strongly ex- 
pressive of the Episcopal authority. 

I beg your attention, Right Reverend Sir, to 
another point of great importance, which you 
overlook or disregard, namely, the jurisdiction 
or mission necessary for the valid exercise of the 
powers of the episcopate. According to St. 
Cyprian, a bishop has no authority unless in 
unity, that is as one of a vast corporation spread 
throughout the world, and bound together in 
indivisible union. Separation from the body of 
bishops involves forfeiture of all right to exer- 
cise the powers of his office. The same father 
regarded the See of Rome as the centre of 
unity, as Hallam and Dr. Nevin acknowledge. 
Barlow and his assistants were not actual occu- 
pants of any see, or united with the See of 
Rome ; they could not, therefore, communi- 
cate the governing power; so that Matthew 
Parker should be called, in the language of Cy- 
prian, a stranger, an intruder, and an enemy. 



312 ON THE CHURCH OE ENGLAND. 

Were it conceded that Ms ordination was valid, 
his occupancy of the See of Canterbury would 
he still an act of usurpation, contrary to all the 
canons of the Church. The sole sanction which 
can he alleged for his intrusion is the Queen's 
letters patent, which professed, indeed, to sup- 
ply all deficiencies, hut which could not bestow 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction.* He cannot, then, be 
regarded as the successor of Pole ; he cannot 
derive under Augustin ; he is the first bishop 
of a church establishment with royal sanction, 
which in the language of St. Cyprian, "is a 
human Church, "f 

From the days of Cranmer the Church of Eng- 
land took this earthly character, since he ascribed 
all his Episcopal jurisdiction to the crown, and 
accordingly, under Edward, it was declared by 
Act of Parliament that " all jurisdiction, both spi- 
ritual and temporal, was derived from the king ;" 
and that the bishops should " thereafter be made 
by the King's letters patent. "J " The intent of 
the contrivers," says Heylin, " was by degrees to 
weaken the authority of the Episcopal order, by 
forcing them from their stronghold of divine in- 
stitution, and making them no other than the 
king's ministers only, his ecclesiastical sherifis, as 
a man might say, to execute his will, and disperse 

* See " The Validity of Anglican Ordinations and Anglican 
Claims to Apostolical Succession Examined, by Peter Richard 
Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis." Philadelphia, 1848. 

fEp. ad Antonian. ;J: Burnet Hist, of Ref, vol. ii. p. 69. 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 313 

his mandates."* On the death of Henry, Cran- 
mer had petitioned the young prince to be re- 
stored to his jurisdiction, and received it accord- 
ingly during the royal pleasure, f so that he is 
sometimes styled in his writings : " The Commis- 
sary of our dread Sovereign Lord King Edward. "J; 
Whilst, then, you extol his labors, and contend 
for his superior merit in promoting the Refor- 
mation, you should not be offended if we explain 
the Ordinal in conformity with his known sen- 
timents, especially as its words are scarcely 
capable of any other construction. The mention 
made of *' such authority as ye have by God's 
word," is too indeterminate to imply governing 
power derived from divine institution, and the 
charge delivered with the Bible sufficiently in- 
timates that it is no more than to preach, and 
inculcate the contents of the divine book. The 
laws of the realm being acknowledged as a source 
of authority, the pledge to observe them is evi- 
dently directed to confine the Episcopal power 
within their limits. 

You are offended at the remark of King 
James, repeated by Dr. Milner, that your ser- 
vice is an ill-said Mass. You know, however, 
that Mass continued to be said, in Latin, in the 
early part of Edward's reign, with an exhorta- 
tion to the communicants in English, and a 

* Heylin, Hist, of Ref., p. 51. 

t Burnet, vol. ii. p. 9. J Strype, Mem. Cranm. 202. 
21 



314 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

prayer.* It is even so styled in the first edi- 
tion of tlie Book of Common Prayer, " The 
Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, 
commonly called the Mass."t Soames avows, 
that the Book of Common Prayer, subsequently 
prepared, was " little more than a selection from 
the established liturgy. "J It is true that the 
most important parts were in many instances 
omitted, and many things were inserted ill- 
suited to the sublime simplicity of the ancient 
formularies. Enough was retained to mark the 
original sources, and make their loss a subject 
of regret, whilst the additions showed the pro- 
gress of the new opinions. In the ceremony of 
Coronation, as still performed, the ancient vest- 
ments are worn, the sacred vessels are carried 
to the Altar ; but what constitutes the sacrifice, 
has disappeared, so that the solemn ceremonial 
turns out to be an empty pageant. Your ritual 
brings to my mind the ruins of the Coliseum 
— a grand fabric of ancient construction, sup- 
ported by brick-work of modern labor. 

The Book of Common Prayer was assented 
to by three bishops only, besides Cranmer ; yet 
it was solemnly declared in the Act to have 
been made by common agreement, and ^*with 
the aid of the Holy Ghost." It was forced on 

* Burnet, ii. p. 103. 

t The two Liturgies of Edward VI. compared. Oxford, 1841, 
p. 260. 

J .'■'oames, iii. p. 309. 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 815 

the clergy, under the heaviest pains and penal- 
ties, namely, in the first instance, the loss of 
their henefices, then imprisonment during a 
year, and in case of a third conviction impri- 
sonment for life. Any person speaking in a 
disrespectful manner of it, was fined two pounds 
for the first offence, twenty pounds for the 
second offence, and for the third was subject to 
entire confiscation of his property and impri- 
sonment for life.* " To make sure work of it," 
saysHeylin, "there passed an Act. . . . for bring- 
ing in of all antiphonaries, missals, breviaries, 
offices, horaries, primers, and processionals, with 
other books of false and superstitious worship. "f 
Yet only four years passed when Cranmer, with 
others, were commissioned by the young king 
to revise the Prayer Book, and actually ex- 
punged from it many of the chief rites retained 
from the old Catholic ceremonial. Chrism, 
heretofore used in confirmation, was henceforth 
omitted ; extreme unction was no longer to be 
administered to the dying, and all mention of 
private confessions was avoided. The Forty-two 
Articles, drawn up chiefly by Cranmer, were 
adopted by royal authority, and passed before 
the public as the expression of the doctrine of 
the English Church. The Thirty-nine Articles, 
published under Elizabeth, closely resemble 
them. It is painful to see how the reformers 

* 2 Edw. VI. 1. t Hist, of Ref. p. 78. 



316 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

proceeded in the work of demolition, giving 
evidence of tlieir own changes of opinion in the 
capricious alteration of the Liturgy. At one 
time they insisted that the sacrament should be 
received kneeling, conformably to the ancient 
usage, but declared that the posture should not 
be regarded as expressive of worship of the 
sacrament. The words used by us in adminis- 
tering it were at first retained ; then others more 
consistent with the Calvinistic theory were sub- 
stituted ; then both were united. Communion 
under both kinds, in the second of the Six Arti- 
cles of Henry YIIL, was declared not necessary 
to salvation by the law of God. The Parlia- 
ment under Edward, in 1547, ordered it to be 
given under both, excepting cases of sudden 
sickness, and other such like extremities. At 
one time the wafer should be round, like the 
Catholic host; at another, common bread was 
prescribed to be used in the sacrament. Oil in 
baptism, and prayers for the departed were first 
prescribed ; and then forbidden, under Edward, 
in a few short years. The priestly ornaments 
were required in the first book — " a white albe, 
plain, with a vestment or cope;"* rejected in 
the second, and then restored under Elizabeth. 
These changes give us an idea of the narrow 
compass to which the magnificent ritual of the 
ancient Church of England is reduced. 

The illustration which you give of your claims 

* The Two Liturgies, p. 267. 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 817 

is certainly not drawn from the Scriptures, 
which never represent the Church of Christ as an 
adulteress ; still less do they sanction any usur- 
pation of her power by rebellious children, on 
the plea that they are entitled to their father's 
inheritance. St. Paul proposes her as a model 
to wives, who are exhorted to obey their hus- 
bands and be subject to them, as the Church is 
subject to Christ. Children also are commanded 
to obey their parents. ITowhere is it insinuated 
that they should rise in revolt against their 
mother, accuse her of adultery, and strip her of 
those endowments with which Christ has en- 
riched her. You must seek your justification 
elsewhere than in the divine oracles. 

Your boast of the republican character of your 
communion ill suits its parent, the Church of 
England, which is purely the creature and slave 
of royalty. She lost her independence, when 
she renounced the protection of the head di- 
vinely given to the whole Church, and bowed 
in homage to an earthly sovereign. Accord- 
ingly, on complaint of the Parliament, of the 
encroachments of the convocation, Henry Viil. 
requested them "to forbear any more to make 
ordinances or constitutions, or to put them in 
execution, but with the royal assent and li- 
cense."* 1^0 matter can be discussed by the 
clergy thus assembled without special leave of 
the Queen, or King, as the case may be; and 

* See Strype, Eccl. Mem.^p. 204-210. 
27* 



318 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

no decision lias force, unless confirmed by the 
Royal sanction. In tlie reign of Queen Anne, 
tlie Convocation condemned the writings of 
"Wliiston, as infected with Arian doctrines, and 
reported the condemnation to the Queen ; but 
waited a week for her approval, which not being 
communicated, they broke up their meeting, 
and adjourned to tlie following year. At the 
opening of the next Convocation they sent a 
deputation to inquire into Her Majesty's gra- 
cious pleasure, in regard to the matter ; but the 
report was ignored, and so the Convocation de- 
sisted from further action. This, I believe, is 
the last sign of life given by them. At present 
they meet for form sake, and adjourn. 

The appointment of Bishops in the Church of 
England is a purely royal or ministerial transac- 
tion. "When the fortunate individual has been 
fixed on who is to enjoy the vast revenues of 
some diocese, with the title of Bishop, the Royal 
conge d'elire issues, directed to the Dean and 
Chapter, requiring them within a certain number 
of days, to proceed to the election of a fit and 
worthy person to fill the vacant See, accompanied 
by letters missive^ recommending and enjoining 
them to choose a certain individual. Any delay 
to exercise their elective privilege in favor of 
the individual recommended, is punishable with 
imprisonment. 

Nous avons change tout cela. So you may 
boast of the republican character of your Church 



ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 319 

discipline. Your titles are not taken from the 
cities in which you reside, as was the practice of 
the Church in ancient times, and as is still the 
custom in England and in Catholic countries, 
but from the territory, over which you claim 
jurisdiction. The control of an Archbishop is 
removed, and precedency with a few privileges, 
is allowed to the senior Bishop, so that authority 
shifts her quarters, according to accidental 
priority of ordination ; the Bishops are elected 
by Diocesan Conventions, in which the laity 
are represented. These annual conventions 
regulate the local affairs of each diocese, and 
appoint standing committees of clergy and lay- 
men to assist the Bishop in the chief manage- 
ment of the diocese, or to control him. The 
vestries of each parish, elected by the congrega- 
tion, choose the Eector, who is instituted by the 
Bishop at their instance. Triennial Conven- 
tions of the same mixed character, regulate the 
general interests of your religious denomination. 
This, I presume, is a fair outline of your Church 
government. That it is far more republican 
than the government of the Church of England 
is very manifest. How far it is advantageous to 
the freedom of clerical action, and the just influ- 
ence of the ministry, you can better tell, who 
some years ago lamented that the episcopal and 
pastoral relation is but the shadow of what it 
once was. Many of your clergy regard it as 
only a decent kind of Congregationalism, with 



820 ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

the forms of episcopacy. The Rectors are prac- 
tically independent of the Bishop, whose au- 
thority is reduced to the mere performance of 
certain official acts, with little room for the 
exercise of his conscientious judgment. Hence 
he is forced to forbear, whilst some evangelical 
clergyman fraternizes with the sects, or resists 
his claims to the exercise of some sacred office 
in a Church of his own Diocese. This inde- 
pendence, although in accordance with our civil 
polity, does not exhibit unity and order, such as 
we should expect to find in the Church of God. 
The delivery of the keys of the Church by the 
Senior "Warden to the Rector, in the ceremony 
of institution, though intended as a mere re- 
cognition of his office, is a practical indication 
that its exercise is to a great extent, dependent 
on the good-will of the congregation. As the 
system is your own, you deserve to enjoy what- 
ever popularity is attached to it, whilst you 
experience its inconveniences and disadvantages. 
In the exercise of holy functions, the priest 
should act and be regarded as the messenger of 
the God of hosts, the minister of Christ, and 
dispenser of Divine mysteries. In order to be 
useful to the faithful, he should be free from 
their control, and subject only to the direction 
and authority of his ecclesiastical superior. 
"Whatever disturbs this order, frustrates his 
ministrations, and reduces religion to the level 
of earthly things. 



LETTER XXIII. 

Right Reverend Sir : 

YOUR attack on tlie Catholic Cliurcli, as cor- 
rupt and idolatrous, is qualified by the ad- 
mission that she is, nevertheless, a true and real 
Church, because she retains the great mysteries 
of Christian faith, and the ministry instituted by 
Christ. The comparison of an adulteress, who 
is nevertheless a real wife, is employed by you 
to illustrate this position. In truth you could 
not reject her altogether, without abandoning 
all the claims of your own communion. The 
Holy Scriptures and the fathers, in speaking of 
the Church, declare her to be the object of 
the special love of Christ, and a model of entire 
fidelity and obedience, whom Christian wives 
should imitate: "As the Church is subject 
to Christ, so also let wives be subject to 
their husbands in all things."* If, with St. 
Augustin, we are to understand the Apostle as 
speaking of the Church triumphant, when he 
describes her as glorious, not having spot, or 
wrinkle, or any such thing, we must at least 
recognize her as free from all idolatry or super- 

* Eph. vi. 24. 



322 ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

stition in lier solemn worship, and from all error 
in -her teacliing, since God would not otherwise 
dwell in her as in his chosen temple, nor would 
she be "the house of the living God, the pillar 
and the ground of truth." If not only scandals 
from time to time spring up in her borders, but 
depraved principles spread their poison, then in 
no sense have the promises of Christ a meaning, 
since the gates of hell have prevailed against 
her. We must either disbelieve His words, or 
maintain that the Church, despite of scandals, 
has always been faithful to her mission, which 
is to proclaim revealed truth, and furnish men 
with means of sanctification. 

The continuance of the Church is a standing 
miracle of Divine Providence, which attests the 
divinity of our Lord in a manner more striking 
than any other proof which can be furnished. It 
is the fulfilment, under our eyes, of the splendid 
prophecy made by Himself, conformably to the 
predictions of Daniel, David, and Isaiah, and 
under circumstances which forbade any human 
hope of a favorable issue. He foretold that His 
Church should be spread throughout all nations, 
and persecuted and oppressed, but never wholly 
vanquished. The opposition of the Jews and 
heathens threatened her with speedy ruin, but 
at the opening of the fourth century, after the 
sacrifice of millions of her children, she received 
the homage of the successor of the Caesars. 
Heresy, in all its endless forms, subsequently 



ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 323 

assailed her, and emperors and kings used their 
power to corrupt her faith, and restrict her ac- 
tion, hut she guarded the deposit of divine truth 
with unfailing watchfulness, and cast from her 
the honds that were thrown around her. The 
jealousies of nations have constantly ohstructed 
her progress, and disturbed her tranquillity, some- 
times despoiling her of her possessions, and 
often loading her with chains, yet she advances, 
diffusing blessings in her pathway, and con- 
founding her enemies by her achievements. You 
object to her success in missionary enterprises 
being taken as a test of her truth, although you 
should reflect that the speedy propagation of 
Christianity is among the most brilliant evi- 
dences of the truth of the Gospel. But be it as 
you say, " The results of two or three hundred 
years are not to be taken as the measure of ful- 
filment" of the Gospel promises. The perma- 
nence of the Church, now more than eighteen 
centuries, must count for something in esti- 
mating her claims to be regarded as the messen- 
ger of God to men. How has she contrived to 
maintain herself, whilst so much corruption, as 
you allege, was preying on her vitals, and so much 
violence assailed her from without? "Often 
have they fought against me from my youth ; let 
Israel now say : Often have they fought against 
me from my youth ; for they could not prevail 
over me."* The infidel beholds the phenome- 
non, and is utterly amazed ; the sectary views it 

* P?. cxxviii. 



324 ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

and blasphemes. One calls this wonderM in- 
stitution a master-piece of liuman policy ; the 
other styles it a grand device of Satan ; but there 
it stands triumphant over every opposition. You 
may well despair of overthrowing it, and avow 
that it will subsist until the second coming of 
our Saviour ; but you should reflect that were it 
a corrupt institution, with a merely human basis, 
it could not possibly survive the attacks made on 
it so incessantly. You should then give glory 
to Christ our Lord for His mercy to mankind in 
securing the transmission of revealed truth by 
the Church, notwithstanding the un worthiness of 
many of her children, and in affording us means 
of sanctification, wholly independent of the per- 
sonal merits of the officers commissioned to im- 
part them. 

I am surprised. Sir, that you should deny that 
the Church is any longer Catholic in the sense 
in which it was proclaimed by St. Augustin, 
namely, as a united body spread throughout the 
world. "Here is a test," you say, " which was 
conclusive in the days of Augustin, but which 
ceased to be so ever since the ambition of Rome 
separated the Eastern from the Western churches, 
in the ninth century." Is this, then, the mark 
and attribute of the Church assigned in all the 
ancient creeds, which are still repeated as words 
of divine faith? In your public ministrations 
you say : "I believe in the Holy Catholic 
Church." You write, the Church for nearly a 
thousand years has ceased to be Catholic. The 



ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 325 

Donatists spoke to the same effect, to whom St. 
Aiigustin replied : " All nations have believed in 
Christ. But that Church which consisted of all 
nations is now no more, it has perished. This 
is said by those who are not in it. O ! shame- 
less assertion. Does the Church no longer exist, 
because you are not in it ? Take care lest you 
be no more ; for she shall be, although you be 
not. The spirit of God foresaw this language, 
which is abominable, detestable, full of pre- 
sumption and falsehood, void of all semblance 
of truth, illumined with no ray of wisdom, sea- 
soned with no wit, vain, rash, reckless, destruc- 
tive, and He spoke, ' as it were, against them, in 
announcing unity, when the people assembled to- 
gether, and kings, to serve the Lord.' ' Declare 
unto me the fewness of my days.' "What does 
this mean ? How did he declare it ? ^Behold 
I am with you to the consummation of the 
world.' "* 

You quote St. Isidore, of Seville, as explaining 
the term Catholic in a variety of ways, by which 
you wish to insinuate that its obvious and direct 
meaning, which implies general diffusion, need 
not be insisted on ; but can you honestly main- 
tain that such is the scope of the author ? " The 
Church," he says, "is strictly so styled (Ecclesid) 
because she calls all to her and gathers them 
together. And she is called Catholic^ because 
she is established throughout the world." The 

"In Ps. ci. Enavr. Serm. II. n. 8. vol, iv. col. 1105. 
28 



326 ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

Latin term instituta, as here applied, has evi- 
dently this force. What he adds, is not to 
weaken or render doubtful this explanation, but 
to show that besides this general diffusion, she 
is also Catholic in the universal character of her 
teaching, which regards heavenly and earthly 
things, and is addressed to men of all classes, 
and intended to remedy all the moral disorders 
of mankind.* 

You strive to substitute another view for that 
of Catholic diffusion. You appeal to that *' which 
the Catholic Church has universally taught 
from days of old, that which has been believed 
everywhere, -always, by all." Tried by this stan- 
dard, you will be found wanting. Compare, if 
you will, the Thirty-nine Articles with the gene- 
ral teaching of antiquity, and you will be forced 
to acknowledge the vast discrepancy. 

The unity of the Catholic Church in all de- 
fined doctrines is a striking fact, which every 
one knows and feels. In order to verify it, it is 
not necessary, as you insinuate, to ask every 
individual Catholic his faith ; you can take any 
one, even a child who has learned his catechism, 
and satisfy yourself. The books of instruction 
published in various countries, the sermons 
preached, the worship offered up, all attest it in 
a manner not easy to be mistaken. Your kind- 
liness acknowledges it after this fashion: "We 
doubt not that there is quite as much of this sort 



* De Offic. Eccl. 1. I.e. 1. 



ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SZl 

of unity among the Budhist and tlie Hindoo 
idolaters, and the followers of the false prophet." 
The freedom of opinion on all matters not of 
faith, is no wise inconsistent with this strict unity. 
But the Church of England cannot justly lay 
claim to it, whilst the collision of views in regard 
to the Thirty-nine Articles, is notorious. 

To illustrate the mark of holiness. Dr. Milner 
pointed, among other things, to the various 
orders which are devoted to works of charity 
and mercy. You deny the Church all merit in 
this respect, because they originated from the 
zeal of individuals, and not from any decree of 
Councils or Popes, and "they may spring up in 
any other church and receive its sanction, with- 
out touching a single point in controversy he- 
longing to the Reformation." Individuals could 
effect hut little, were it not for the sanction and 
guidance of authority, which gives a direction 
and blessing to their labors. Protestants have 
from time to time tried to rival these benevolent 
institutions, with little success, precisely because 
the soil was not congenial. Dr. ITevin, avows 
this distinctly : "Such an institution as that of 
the Sisters of Charity, can never be transferred 
to purely Protestant ground ; as no such ground 
either could ever have given it birth. Attempts 
are made in our own time to famish a Pro- 
testant version of the same idea, under what 
claims to be a higher and more evangelical 
form ; for the purpose of supplying an evident 
want. But nothing of this sort will ever equal 



828 ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

the original design, or be more indeed than a 
weak and stunted copy of this on the most narrow 
and ephemeral scale. It is only in the bosom 
of ideas, principles, and associations, which are 
Catholic distinctively, and not Protestant, that 
charity of this sort finds itself perfectly at home. 
And just so it is with the piety of this Church 
in general. It is fairly and truly native to the 
soil from which it springs. That Church, with 
all its supposed errors and sins, has ever had 
power in its own way to produce a large amount 
of very lovely religion. If it has been the 
mother of abominations, it has been unques- 
tionably the mother also of martyrs and saints. 
It is a sorry business to pretend to deny this, or 
to try to falsify the fact into the smallest possi- 
ble dimensions."* 

The argument of Dr. Milner in favor of the 
Church, derived from the miracles which attest 
the sanctity of her children, does not interfere 
with her claims to obedience in virtue of her 
Divine commission. She produces this as a 
voucher for her authority altogether sufficient. 
Yet those wonders, which from time to time 
happen through the prayers of holy men, serve 
to confirm faith, and show forth the Divine 
attributes. The passage which you quote from 
St. Gregory the Great, recognizes the principle 
of Church authority as independent of miracles, 

* Mercersburg Review, September, 1851. Art. Early Chris- 
tianity. 



ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 329 

SO that if any one should perform them in oppo- 
sition to the Church, they should be disregarded 
as tainted with pride, and hateful to Him, who 
at the last day will reject some wonder-workers 
as doers of iniquity. This is a safe criterion, by 
which we may distinguish the false wonders of 
Satan from works truly Divine. But when 
extraordinary works are performed in support of 
revealed truth, and for ends every way worthy 
of God, their Divine character being thus mani- 
fest, new lustre is added thereby to faith, and the 
Church receives from them support, not indeed 
necessary to substantiate her claims, but highly 
serviceable to confirm the weak in faith, and to 
confound unbelievers. That St. Gregory so 
regarded them is evident from his Dialogues in 
which he records them. I must award you the 
praise of ingenuity, in availing yourself of the 
strongest passages that have been uttered against 
heresy, to weaken the evidences which support 
the Church. St. Gregory says: "The Holy 
Church disregards the miracles of heretics, if 
they perform any, because she does not recognize 
them as an evidence of holiness. For the proof 
of holiness is not to work miracles, but to love 
others as ourselves, and to entertain correct sen- 
timents in regard to God, and to think better of 

our neighbor than ourselves The gift of 

brotherly love is, therefore, a token that we are 
disciples of Christ. Which love all heretics ab- 
jure, by separating from the unity of the universal 
Church Without doubt the Holy Church 



330 ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

considers all heretics unwortliy of eternal life, 
because in tlie name of Christ they war on the 
name of Christ."* Elsewhere he says of mira- 
cles in general : " Those corporal wonders some- 
times manifest holiness ; but they do not con- 
stitute it."t 

You call St. Isidore, of Seville, to your as- 
sistance, as if he undervalued miracles, and fore- 
told that the Church would be utterly destitute 
of their support. He follows closely on the 
footsteps of St. Gregory,! ^^^ indeed avowed 
that miracles were not now as frequent in the 
Church as at its commencement, but distinctly 
recorded many which had come to his know- 
ledge. St. Isidore says, that the world was won 
to the faith by the miracles of the Apostles, but 
that the faithful are now to shed abroad the 
light of good works as the fruits of their faith. 
He does not deny, that miracles were occa- 
sionally performed in his own time, which, on 
the contrary, he intimates by observing that 
*' miracles and virtues will cease from the Church 
before the appearance of Antichrist." By vir- 
tues, " virtutes," he seems to understand miracles 
according to the Scriptural force of the corre- 
sponding Greek term, so that the same idea is 
expressed in a twofold manner ; for he states 
that the cessation of these gifts will afford occa- 
sion to the manifestation of the patience of the 
saints, and the inconstancy of the reprobate 

* Mor. L. XX. in cap, xxx. B, Job. f Horn. xxix. in Ev. Marci. 
:}: L. xxvii.; Mor. c. xviii. 



ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 8ol 

who will fall away, and to fiercer persecution 
on tlie part of the enemies of the Church.* 

I shall take no pains to claim for the Church 
a republican character, because she is a Divine 
institution, deriving her authority from above, and 
directed to lead men to eternal happiness. "We 
are not at liberty to model her according to our 
political predilections, or to suit the popular fancy. 
She is, if you will, a monarchy, since she has one 
supreme ruler, representing Christ, her Divine 
Founder; but the caprice, or will, of no indi- 
vidual can change her doctrines, or maxims ; no 
authority of an arbitrary character can be claimed 
in the name of Him, the sceptre of whose king- 
dom is a sceptre of justice. The bishops, go- 
verning their respective flocks throughout the 
world, share with their head the solicitude with 
which he is specially charged, and feed the sheep 
of Christ, not lording it over them, but becom- 
ing their model from the heart. The priests are 
their fellow-laborers, discharging the duties of 
their office under their authority and guidance. 
The faithful generally, without distinction of 
castes, or classes, are the objects of the tender 
care of the pastors of the Church, who watch 
incessantly as being to render • an account for 
their souls. Those who will examine closely the 
features of the Church, according to her divine 
constitution, will find enough to satisfy them that 
she is not anti-republican. The common good 
of all, is her great object; her offices are open to 

* L. iii. ; Sentent, c. xxvii. 



.332 ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

all, to the man of humble birth, as well as to the 
nobleman ; her power is limited by truth and 
justice. As regards political institutions, she is 
wholly independent of any, and suited to all. It 
is not her province to model or fashion them ; 
but being indifferent to each particular form of 
social organization, she studies only to infase 
the spirit and maxims of Christ, and thus to 
modify and mitigate whatever may be exorbi- 
tant and unjust. "The Christian religion," says 
St. Priest, "which has existed for near two 
thousand years, is not indissolubly attached to 
any political form. Under the shadow of abso- 
lute thrones, or of limited monarchies, — on the 
borders of the republican lake of "William Tell, 
in America, which is still more republican, it 
flourishes as an imperishable plant, nourished 
by the juices of earth, and refreshed by the 
waters of heaven. It is not a local, but a uni- 
versal religion.'"^ 

I remain, Eight Eeverend Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

Francis Patrick Kenrick, 

Archbishop of Bahimore. 
Baltimore, May 1, 1855. 



* Histoire de la Royaut^ par le Comte Alexis de Saint Priest. 
1. ii. p. 92. 



1 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1606B 
{724)779-2111 



V^'^c 



R 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 285 552 









t/^r ■- 



